gistfile1.txt

Is there anything you would do to make this read simpler?  Please post in the Gist comments your thoughts!

Proposed Code:

final File[] shorthand = Maven.resolver().addDependency("G:A:V").addExclusion().groupId("G1").artifactId("A1")
            .endExclusion().addExclusion("G2:A2").resolve().withTransitivity().as(File.class);

...is equivalent to:

<dependency>
  <groupId>G</groupId>
  <artifactId>A</artifactId>
  <version>V</version>
  <exclusions>
    <exclusion>
      <groupId>G1</groupId>
      <artifactId>A1</artifactId>
    </exclusion>
    <exclusion>
      <groupId>G2</groupId>
      <artifactId>A2</artifactId>
    </exclusion>
  </exclusions>
</dependency>

Gotcha. I see what you mean. The phases are succinct

…

On May 18, 2012 10:45 PM, "Andrew Lee Rubinger" < ***@***.***> wrote: WRT your comments on the "withTransitivity" earlier in the example: the current prototype is built in "phases" to follow the grammar: "I want to (optionally configure from X) and resolve THESE COORDINATES using THIS RESOLUTION STRATEGY, obtaining the result in THIS FORMAT" ...which: 1) Allows us to address all use cases with the same flow 2) Minimizes the places that users will have to supply arguments (like "resolver(TransitiveResolutionFilter)") thus keeping fluency I _may_ very well be overlooking ways to make this simpler, but this is the current POC, based on broader discussion: https://community.jboss.org/thread/198974#733112 Thanks as always Adrian; love having your eyes around. --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://gist.github.com/2729351

+1 for stringified coordinate syntax.

…

On May 19, 2012 5:21 AM, "Andrew Lee Rubinger" < ***@***.***> wrote: Agreed Guillaume; the code you've got there _is_ currently supported as well. It actually makes me wonder what exactly the use case is for having the builder (for groupId(), artifactId(), etc.)... --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://gist.github.com/2729351