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

What if every module had a bom that was imported, or if this were handled in the seam-bom? John On Aug 16, 2011 11:06 PM, "Dan Allen" <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com <mailto:dan.j.allen@gmail.com>> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 22:57, Shane Bryzak <sbryzak(a)redhat.com <mailto:sbryzak@redhat.com>> wrote: > >> Of course, but we break that rule. Solder is one example, there's >> multiple utility classes in the implementation that are required to compile >> 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 the >> 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 a > runtime dep, make the api compile time, make any dependent api compile time > and make any dependency impl runtime. If Maven can't accommodate that, then > 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