Mailing-List: contact dev-help@felix.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@felix.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of heavy@ungoverned.org
 designates 69.89.20.231 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <46E80111.6040200@ungoverned.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:09:05 -0400
From: "Richard S. Hall" <heavy@ungoverned.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@felix.apache.org
Subject: Re: Javax.servlet Module
References: <46E564F4.5080500@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <46E564F4.5080500@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> I'm still wondering if we need our own version of the javax.servlet
> implementation. I know that the spec mandates 2.1.
>
> We just ran into compilation problems because of two different
> servlet-apis on the classpath. This is due to the problem that our
> version uses "org.apache.felix" as the group id whereas the servlet api
> uses "javax.servlet". Therefore mvn can't tell that this is the same
> library just with different versions. So as we use 2.3 features of the
> servlet-api and as maven wanted to put the 2.1 version before the 2.3
> version in the classpath, compilation failed.
>
> Now, of course, it's possible to exclude this dependency here and there,
> but it has to be excluded nearly with every felix artifact and is a nice
> pitfall.
>
> So, can't we just get rid off this? Or can we at least use the groupId
> javax.servlet to make things easier?
>   

Hmm. I was thinking the opposite...changing 2.1 to use 
"org.apache.felix" for its groupId...

I think we could go in either direction, however.

-> richard