Return-Path: 
 <users-return-135376-apmail-maven-users-archive=maven.apache.org@maven.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-maven-users-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-maven-users-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C1FAE10CCB
	for <apmail-maven-users-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Fri,  7 Feb 2014 09:33:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 31192 invoked by uid 500); 7 Feb 2014 09:33:52 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-maven-users-archive@maven.apache.org
Received: (qmail 30721 invoked by uid 500); 7 Feb 2014 09:33:44 -0000
Mailing-List: contact users-help@maven.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org>
List-Help: <mailto:users-help@maven.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:users@maven.apache.org>
List-Id: "Maven Users List" <users.maven.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Maven Users List" <users@maven.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list users@maven.apache.org
Received: (qmail 30707 invoked by uid 99); 7 Feb 2014 09:33:41 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 09:33:41 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0
	tests=SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from [88.116.248.50] (HELO sartre.xss.co.at) (88.116.248.50)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 09:33:34 +0000
Received: from goethe.intern.xss.co.at (goethe.intern.xss.co.at
 [192.168.162.10])
	by sartre.xss.co.at (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id s179XE8K020140
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <users@maven.apache.org>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:33:14 +0100
Received: from linux-du93.site ([10.168.162.10])
	by goethe.intern.xss.co.at (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s179XD5S028505
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO)
	for <users@maven.apache.org>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:33:13 +0100
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:33:10 +0100
From: Martin Hoeller <martin@xss.co.at>
To: Maven Users List <users@maven.apache.org>
Subject: Best practices for Java EE 7 dependencies
Message-ID: <20140207103310.500020fb@linux-du93.site>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.10 (GTK+ 2.24.7; x86_64-suse-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1;
 boundary="Sig_/XXguuMzTht+TobIyZPN_96y"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98 at mail.intern.xss.co.at
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

--Sig_/XXguuMzTht+TobIyZPN_96y
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi!

I'm wondering what the best practices are for specifying Java EE 7
dependencies in my modules.

There is the so called BOM (bill of materials) POM: javax:javaee-api:7.0
which lists all API submodules required for JEE7. Specifying this in my
module as

  <dependency>
    <groupId>javax</groupId>
    <artifactId>javaee-api</artifactId>
    <version>7.0</version>
  </dependency>

works and is the least work for me. However, this way I got all JEE APIs
on the CLASSPATH even if I just need a few of them. Further on, the
actual dependencies are now transitive which is (IMHO) not fully correct.
Should I better specify the exact dependencies and investigate some more
work in POM maintainance? What would this gain me?

What do you think?

- martin

--Sig_/XXguuMzTht+TobIyZPN_96y
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlL0qFgACgkQYJf22JPx7tmlFQCeMnd8zOhvuaWfyO8FrvZmgIsO
2N8AnimdC2qP96JR9P7TaldmRY7/U0ES
=F81+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Sig_/XXguuMzTht+TobIyZPN_96y--