Question

I realise this is more of a semantic quest rather than a functionality quest.

I have three types of compile-scope dependencies:

1. Compile-only scope, not used at run-time.
   GWT client-side dev, MVP4G, RestyGWT, Source retention annotation processors. I use REST, so I don’t need GWT server side.

2. Provided – Hibernate jars required for compilation but provided by JBoss.

3. Compile + runtime jars.

For case 2, we could use provided scope. Case 3, we would use compile scope.

However for case 1, I use provided scope, even though JBoss does not provide those files at all. Nor are they needed at run-time.

Anyway, don’t you think Maven should provide for a synonym for “provided” for a scope where the artefacts are not really needed except at compile time? Perhaps, should there be a “compile-only” scope?

Answer 1

If the jars with are not true “runtime” dependencies (only for building) but not for the final artifact, you can exclude them various means:

1. Exclusion in the assembly descriptor
2. Exclusion in the jar (or war, ear, whatever) plugin configuration
3. Shade Plugin minimize jar goal

I agree that shipping unnecessary classes is annoying (I’ve seen junit and testng jars in production deployments – brrrr…), but for all practical purposes it’s a rather minor one.

If you have a dependency conflict (i.e shipping a “all deps” version of a library or framework), that’s a different story, but doesn’t sound like what you’re facing here.