On 2/15/06, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 14, 2006, at 8:32 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote: > > > 1) It seems like the name-key elements should be wrapped in another > > element. Perhaps an element named name-pattern or something similar. > > Maybe we just make these generic properties: > > <properties> > <property> > <name>domain</name> > <value>geronimo.maven</value> > </property> > <property> > <name>J2EEServer</name> > <value>geronimo</value> > </property> > </properties>
Yes, using the properties element is a good idea. I like that. > On Feb 15, 2006, at 5:13 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote: > > > The biggest change I'd request is to take the Id of the end of group > > and artifact. I don't think it adds anything, and it makes it harder > > to read and repeat (is that Id or ld, for example). If we really have > > to keep it, I'd prefer artifact-id and group-id, but I really don't > > see why we shouldn't just use group, type, artifact, and version. > > If we are going with maven style dependencies I think we should > follow their xml (http://maven.apache.org/maven-model/maven.html) as > close as possible. If we are going to split from their format, I > would like the difference to not be subtle, which would rule out > dropping just the Id and reusing elements named "scope" or "type" for > something other than what they mean in maven. While I agree in theory, let's see how this proves out in practice. I think building on the Maven concepts is fine. Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );' Apache Geronimo (http://geronimo.apache.org/) Castor (http://castor.org/)
