commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Sanchez <car...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [chain] dependencies
Date Wed, 16 Nov 2005 07:43:21 GMT
What maven2 tries to address with "optional" means that there's a very
high chance for that jar not to be needed. Let's say you can use chain
in a standalone (not servlet) environment,  then servlet dependency is
optional.

This is a way to solve problems that usually would be easier solved
having a chain-core, chain-jsf, chain-portlet, chain-servlet. (I'm
just guesing up)

I don't believe BeanUtils, Digester and Logging are optional at all.
Of course if you use a class from the jar you won't need a lot of
dependencies, but that's not the point of the optional tag in maven2.

Regards

On 11/15/05, Craig McClanahan <craigmcc@apache.org> wrote:
> On 11/15/05, Wendy Smoak <wsmoak@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm trying to sort out the dependencies for Chain-- right now the pom
> > in the repository (for Maven 2) is bringing the Servlet and Portlet
> > APIs plus a beta version of MyFaces into any project that depends on
> > it.
> >
> > From the project home page, it looks like all three of these are optional.
>
>
> At runtime, that's true unless you use the corresponding Context
> implementation class. It's also true at compile time if you use the Ant
> script (which has conditional compilation targets -- don't know whether you
> can do that in Maven or not).
>
> Can someone please confirm (for a non-portlet developer) that Portlet
> > works the same way as Servlet, that is, the container provides the API
> > at runtime?
>
>
> It *can* work that way. However, the portlet API is not a required part of
> the J2EE (now Java EE) platform, so you cannot be guaranteed that it will be
> in your average servlet container. For example, the portlet API jar is not
> shipped with Tomcat by default.
>
> In addition, the docs say, "To maximize the usefulness of the Chain of
> > Responsibility pattern APIs, the fundamental interface contracts are
> > defined in a manner with zero dependencies other than an appropriate
> > JDK."
> >
> > Does that mean that the BeanUtils, Digester and Logging dependencies
> > are also optional?
>
>
> If you take the intended meaning of "fundamental APIs" to mean the interface
> definitions in org.apache.commons.chain (which was the intent of that
> statement, since I wrote it :-) then yes, they are optional. However,
> logging is required by most of the impl subpackage implementations.
> Digester/BeanUtils are only required if you use the provided utility classes
> to parse XML based configuration files. Nothing in Commons Chain actually
> requires this ... you are perfectly free to create Catalog, Chain, and
> Command instances manually and integrate them appropriately.
>
> Thanks,
> > Wendy
>
>
> Craig
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message