[seam-dev] Meeting 2011-08-17

[Shane Bryzak]

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.  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.

On 17/08/11 12:48, Dan Allen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 22:27, Shane Bryzak <sbryzak at redhat.com 
> <mailto:sbryzak at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>     Another thing to add to the agenda which we need to discuss is
>     dependency scopes.  In particular, we need to review our previous
>     decision to make the implementation component of a module
>     runtime-scoped, in light of the fact that we now no longer have
>     combined jars.
>
>
> Isn't the idea of having an API and implementation split is that you 
> should not be compiling against anything in the implementation? Of 
> course, an end user can choose to override that convention to make the 
> implementation a compile-time scope, but we don't want to encourage 
> that, do we?
>
> -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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/seam-dev/attachments/20110817/cc7cfe3a/attachment-0001.html