commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Craig McClanahan" <>
Subject Re: Commons-logging 1.1 POM: why isn't servlet-api scope=provided ?
Date Tue, 23 Jan 2007 21:42:17 GMT
On 1/23/07, Yoav Shapira <> wrote:
> Hola,
> I think that the commons-logging Maven POM
> (
> in SVN) should specify scope="provided" for its Servlet API
> dependency.  That helps users by not including the Servlet API in
> packaged artifacts, such as WARs, that use commons-logging.
> Is there a reason why the default scope ("compile") is used instead?
> The provided scope, as described at
> ,
> is designed exactly for this use case.

It was an oversight.

BTW, I noticed the new optional=true parameter that's in the POM on
> SVN trunk (see above URL), but not yet in the Maven repositories
> (
> ).

Yep ... basically we're waiting for someone to have the energy to manage a
1.1.1 release ... as far as I know there are no other outstanding issues
(there was a question of whether the trunk code works in applets, but AFAIK
the answer was yes).

That's a good step, but it's not sufficient for this case and does
> not provide the same functionality as add scope="provided."

Why?  The part of C-L that depends on the servlet API is indeed optional,
and we don't want to trigger transitive dependencies on, say, a rich client
app that was using C-L and would not normally have a servlet API jar lying
around.  My understanding of "provided" is that this would still make the
servlet API be required, but not "included" with
commons-logging-xxx.jar(which does not really mean anything in a
project that produces a JAR
instead of a WAR).

> Yoav


> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message