Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

Le mer. 21 juin 2023 à 09:27, Hervé Boutemy a écrit : > Le dimanche 18 juin 2023, 21:49:41 CEST Guillaume Nodet a écrit : > > Le dim. 18 juin 2023 à 21:14, Hervé Boutemy a > > > > écrit : > > > I now understand our divergence: you implicitely use Maven 4 with some > > > updates > > > already

Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

Le dimanche 18 juin 2023, 21:49:41 CEST Guillaume Nodet a écrit : > Le dim. 18 juin 2023 à 21:14, Hervé Boutemy a > > écrit : > > I now understand our divergence: you implicitely use Maven 4 with some > > updates > > already done on xsd versions that I did not know about, and I don't yet > >

Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

Le dim. 18 juin 2023 à 21:14, Hervé Boutemy a écrit : > I now understand our divergence: you implicitely use Maven 4 with some > updates > already done on xsd versions that I did not know about, and I don't yet > understand what has already be done on build vs consumer POM transformation > >

Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

I now understand our divergence: you implicitely use Maven 4 with some updates already done on xsd versions that I did not know about, and I don't yet understand what has already be done on build vs consumer POM transformation First, having some feedback from people on the idea of using plugin

Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

Le ven. 16 juin 2023, 19:20, Hervé Boutemy a écrit : > Le mercredi 14 juin 2023, 10:07:46 CEST Guillaume Nodet a écrit : > > I think this is exactly what Hervé explains was rejected years ago. The > > assumption is that the POM v4 is "set in amber" and will never change, at > > least for the

Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

Le mercredi 14 juin 2023, 10:07:46 CEST Guillaume Nodet a écrit : > I think this is exactly what Hervé explains was rejected years ago. The > assumption is that the POM v4 is "set in amber" and will never change, at > least for the consumer side, i.e. defining dependencies. For the build > side,

Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

Le mer. 14 juin 2023 à 10:07, Guillaume Nodet a écrit : > I think this is exactly what Hervé explains was rejected years ago. The > assumption is that the POM v4 is "set in amber" and will never change, at > least for the consumer side, i.e. defining dependencies. For the build > side, it has

Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

I think this is exactly what Hervé explains was rejected years ago. The assumption is that the POM v4 is "set in amber" and will never change, at least for the consumer side, i.e. defining dependencies. For the build side, it has to evolve, so the POM v5 will need a different schema url or

Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

Sorry for chiming in again but perhaps I might have an idea.  The XSD schema that a POM uses is actually referenced from the POM.  So in essence each POM carries with it what is needed to know to parse it.  Perhaps in Maven 5 (or whichever version) we can require POM parsers to read and use

Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

Le lundi 12 juin 2023, 01:50:56 CEST Guillaume Nodet a écrit : > > Don't look at Maven code to judge: the whole logic is based on "known > > unknown" > > = we don't know who parses POMs published to Maven Central, but there are > > many > > (it's easy to cite many, but not all). > > I can't buy

Re: Build POM and consumer POM (was Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

Le lun. 12 juin 2023 à 01:36, Guillaume Nodet a écrit : > Le dim. 11 juin 2023 à 23:12, Romain Manni-Bucau a > écrit : > > > > > > > Le dim. 11 juin 2023 à 22:28, Guillaume Nodet a > > écrit : > > > >> Those are actually two different questions, but I'd like to raise those > >> together, since

Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

Le dim. 11 juin 2023 à 23:54, Hervé Boutemy a écrit : > Le vendredi 9 juin 2023, 11:22:26 CEST Guillaume Nodet a écrit : > > Le ven. 9 juin 2023 à 08:59, Hervé Boutemy a > écrit : > > > adding a new POM element in build POM was supposed to be something for > > > Maven 5 > > > and to trigger a

Re: Build POM and consumer POM (was Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

Isn't the schema named in the POM document itself?  Can't we just allow use of "extended" (read backwards compatible) schemas as the POM is versioned?  Then if/once a specific schema for a use case becomes popular it can be added to parsers as the required version if needed.  Or perhaps that's

Re: Build POM and consumer POM (was Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

Le dim. 11 juin 2023 à 23:12, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit : > > > Le dim. 11 juin 2023 à 22:28, Guillaume Nodet a > écrit : > >> Those are actually two different questions, but I'd like to raise those >> together, since they do affect the same feature. >> >> 1/ We currently don't have an XML

Re: Build POM and consumer POM (was Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

Le dimanche 11 juin 2023, 23:31:36 CEST Hunter C Payne a écrit : > Strange question but maybe it will inspire someone else. Why does the POM > the user uses to control the build the exact same format as the POMs > created to express the results of the build? Is that necessary? it has been done

Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

Le vendredi 9 juin 2023, 11:22:26 CEST Guillaume Nodet a écrit : > Le ven. 9 juin 2023 à 08:59, Hervé Boutemy a écrit : > > adding a new POM element in build POM was supposed to be something for > > Maven 5 > > and to trigger a POM 5 version, to make clear that we are leaving the > > Maven 3 > >

Re: Build POM and consumer POM (was Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

Strange question but maybe it will inspire someone else.  Why does the POM the user uses to control the build the exact same format as the POMs created to express the results of the build?  Is that necessary?  It seems to me the discussion is about the drawbacks of that approach.  Perhaps its

Re: Build POM and consumer POM (was Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

Le dim. 11 juin 2023 à 22:28, Guillaume Nodet a écrit : > Those are actually two different questions, but I'd like to raise those > together, since they do affect the same feature. > > 1/ We currently don't have an XML schema for the build POM. One > possibility would be to relax a bit the

Build POM and consumer POM (was Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

Those are actually two different questions, but I'd like to raise those together, since they do affect the same feature. 1/ We currently don't have an XML schema for the build POM. One possibility would be to relax a bit the constraints on the main POM schema (

Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

Le ven. 9 juin 2023 à 08:59, Hervé Boutemy a écrit : > adding a new POM element in build POM was supposed to be something for > Maven 5 > and to trigger a POM 5 version, to make clear that we are leaving the > Maven 3 > space (that uses POM version 4, hence the need for version clarification >

Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 16:23, Heiko Studt wrote: > > Hallo, > > Quote: > > the pom with a hardcoded version of the schema. > > But frankly let's consider this as a bug in the tool/ide doing so. > > Sorry to disagree: from a security standpoint, XSD is sufficient complex > enough that I do not

Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

+1 to keep 3.x as this +1 to do not backward incompatible changes in v4 if possible (we regularly have the need and workaround it) Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github

Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

adding a new POM element in build POM was supposed to be something for Maven 5 and to trigger a POM 5 version, to make clear that we are leaving the Maven 3 space (that uses POM version 4, hence the need for version clarification between Maven and it POM model version) if we enter that space

Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

Hallo, Quote: > the pom with a hardcoded version of the schema. > But frankly let's consider this as a bug in the tool/ide doing so. Sorry to disagree: from a security standpoint, XSD is sufficient complex enough that I do not want to download one from a random location on the internet,

Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

sounds like a new feature (MNG-7804) The only problem I can imagine is with tools/ide consuming the build pom if they do not respect the xmlns and schemaLocation by validating the pom with a hardcoded version of the schema. But frankly let's consider this as a bug in the tool/ide doing so. On

Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

Isn't this the type of change that XML Schema is supposed to enable?  Perhaps the problem is that we need to provide a downstream way to access generic plugin specific model elements that is divorced from the POM itself?  Then we don't have to live in fear of POM changes.  Just a

Re: [DISCUSS] POM model version

+1 to enable it, +1000 to try to write a 4.0.0 version when possible else fail until enabled/forced in install/deploy plugins maybe? Le jeu. 8 juin 2023 à 22:56, Guillaume Nodet a écrit : > While working on an issue [1], I've raised a PR [2] which is adding an xml > element to the POM. So I

[DISCUSS] POM model version

While working on an issue [1], I've raised a PR [2] which is adding an xml element to the POM. So I raised the model version to 4.2.0. My understanding is that the build/consumer POM feature [3] was created so that we could keep compatibility. This is clearly indicated in the wiki page: "Maven