On 18/03/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I liked the m1 dependency page version [1] better than the m2 one [2]. > The latter seems a bit noisy from the user PoV, and is mildly > incorrect in some places, such as the dependency tree and transitivity > of optionality. > > I'd like to get other opinions. >
The M1 format is a bit easier to read, apart from the fact that the different uses (compile test etc) of the jars are all mixed up. I think the M2 layout is better for that. Not sure I see the point of the group-id on the M2 format, and the classifier should definitely be dropped. The M2 "Dependency Listings" section does not appear to be in any particular order, and is currently not very useful owing to gaps in the data. The M2 "Dependency File Details" section is strange. What does the "Debug" column mean? Is it relevant to users? What does the JDK rev mean? Is it compile-target or minimum Java version? I like the idea of the M2 "Java version" section, but it ought to be accurate, e.g. built from manually provided data rather than whatever happens to be in SVN at the time it is generated. > -Rahul > > [1] > http://people.apache.org/~rahul/commons/scxml-0.7/rc2/site/dependencies.html > [2] http://commons.apache.org/scxml/dependencies.html > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
