Re: [seam-dev] Meeting 2011-08-17

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 22:57, Shane Bryzak <sbryzak(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Of course, but we break that rule. Solder is one example, there's > multiple utility classes in the implementation that are required to

> other modules. > I consider that a bug (or a work in progress, depending on how you look at it). > Also, by making the implementation runtime-only, the user is forced to > declare two dependencies for their project, one for the API and one for

> implementation. If the implementation was compile-scoped, they could just > declare the implementation dependency and the API would then be pulled in > automatically. This is the kind of stuff we need to discuss and come to a > resolution on. > Again, I don't think one dependency is a holy grail. We are making an optimization that I don't find necessary. Making an implementation compile-scoped could be classified as careless programming (by some strict architects, let's say). If it's setup correctly, depending on seam-faces (the impl) should make it

runtime dep, make the api compile time, make any dependent api compile

and make any dependency impl runtime. If Maven can't accommodate that,

it's just a pita (even then, the worse thing that happens is that the user has two dependencies). -Dan -- Dan Allen Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action Registered Linux User #231597 http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen#about http://mojavelinux.com http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction