Unfortunately that would be incorrect. The whole point of this is that we are moving toward a real api/impl split where API classes are visible to dependent classloaders, and impl classes are not.

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:23 PM, Vineet Reynolds Pereira <vpereira@redhat.com> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lincoln Baxter, III" <lincolnbaxter@gmail.com>
> To: "forge-dev List" <forge-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 5:03:35 AM
> Subject: [forge-dev] Build broken due to FORGE-1823 and FORGE-1824
>
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/FORGE-1823
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/FORGE-1824
>
> Fixing these issue has revealed numerous places within our codebase that we
> were incorrectly depending on IMPL classes that should not have been leaked
> on the maven classpath.
>
> Now that the leak has been fixed, we have to clean up the mess :) The only
> compilations I know to be remaining are in the scaffold-faces project.

Would it be correct to fix the compilation errors in the scaffold-faces project,
by adding javaee-impl as a provided dependency to this project?

Some javaee-impl and transitive dependencies are required during compilation of
scaffold-faces, while at runtime, this would be provided by the javaee addon.

>
> It remains to be seen how many of the tests break due to this change... we'll
> see.
>
> --
> Lincoln Baxter, III
> http://ocpsoft.org
> "Simpler is better."
>

> _______________________________________________
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

--
Lincoln Baxter, III
http://ocpsoft.org
"Simpler is better."