[jbossseam-issues] [JBoss JIRA] Commented: (JBSEAM-2199) remove javax.servlet:servlet-api and javax.el:el-api as hard dependencies in Maven 2

Pete Muir (JIRA) jira-events at lists.jboss.org
Thu Nov 1 18:24:44 EDT 2007

    [ http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBSEAM-2199?page=comments#action_12385624 ] 
Pete Muir commented on JBSEAM-2199:

We really need to decide on a single policy for what is provided and what is optional.

Originally I went with "what's in jboss as 4.2 is marked as provided" but I'm not sure this is a good policy. What you are after is (correct me if I'm wrong) "what's  in tomcat (6) is marked as provided". Perhaps this is reasonable...

What I really really want is proper dependency profiles so we can build support for Tomcat AND JBoss AS AND Glassfish AND... We can probably do this for projects which extend the root pom at the moment.

> remove javax.servlet:servlet-api and javax.el:el-api as hard dependencies in Maven 2
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: JBSEAM-2199
>                 URL: http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBSEAM-2199
>             Project: JBoss Seam
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components: Core
>    Affects Versions: 2.0.0.GA
>            Reporter: Dan Allen
>         Assigned To: Pete Muir
>             Fix For: 2.0.1.GA
>   Original Estimate: 30 minutes
>  Remaining Estimate: 30 minutes
> I feel that both the javax.servlet:servlet-api and javax.el:el-api dependencies should always be declared at provided (or optional). Currently, the hard dependencies are as such:
> javax.servlet:servlet-api - debug, pdf, remoting, ioc
> javax.el:el-api - core, debug, mail, pdf, ui
> The provided scope, as you know, will be available for compile and tests, but not deployed. Personally I feel that provided is the best choice because optional forces developers to add it as a dependency when it is likely they will need it to compile. The JSF POM files uses provided for the javax.servlet:servlet-api dependency, so perhaps we should follow suit.
> Basically, if the user wants to include a library that is part of Java EE 5 in their project as a deployment dependency (compile or runtime), then they can comfortably add it. Otherwise,they are forced to use a barrage of exclusions to get it booted. As it stands now the JSF libraries are not included by default, so it stands to reason that the servlet and EL APIs are also out. It is very easy for someone to include a build profile in their project that throws these artifacts in for an older spec deployment.
> Of course, this brings up the point that Maven 2 is really lame in how it does exclusions. Wouldn't it be nice just to say "I never want this artifact, I don't care what you say". Nope, let's just do it the hard way (says the Maven 2 folks), it is more fun.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://jira.jboss.com/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira


More information about the seam-issues mailing list