Weakness of "requires public"

[Malachi de Ælfweald]

This gets back to the point that Maven/etc already do that.  We shouldn't
be re-inventing the build tools.



Malachi de Ælfweald
http://www.google.com/profiles/malachid

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict at apache.org> wrote:

> The other potential use case I have identified is when two modules carry
> transitive dependencies of the same package structures. Module A drags in
> Module B, Module C drags in Module D, but both B and D are code clones of
> each other. In a realistic scenario, B and D could be Apache Commons Lang
> under different module names. In this type of situation, duplicate packages
> need to be avoided and I have to eliminate one of these transitive
> dependencies at both source and runtime.
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Mark Derricutt <mark at talios.com> wrote:
>
>> On 27 Jul 2016, at 8:27, Malachi de Ælfweald wrote:
>>
>> > I would not expect to specify any transitive dependency.  I would not
>> > expect any user of my API to have to manually specify any transitive
>> > dependencies I used in my public API (return types for example).  If
>> they
>> > did - that completely breaks the point of me specifying transitive
>> > dependencies in the first place.
>>
>> My view on this - if your code requires those dependencies to compile or
>> be resolved by the class loader, it should be declared - otherwise its an
>> internal dependency of that module and (could) be pulled in transitively to
>> RUN/TEST.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark Derricutt
>> http://www.theoryinpractice.net
>> http://www.chaliceofblood.net
>> http://plus.google.com/+MarkDerricutt
>> http://twitter.com/talios
>> http://facebook.com/mderricutt
>>
>
>