answers are below.
Robert
On 4-1-2021 16:52:23, Matthieu Brouillard <matth...@brouillard.fr> wrote:
@Robert nothing is broken atm, the changes for consumer/build are currently
behind your feature flag.
Robert Scholte:
It is active by default, so it is actually not hidden.
But as I feared previously, and as Romain pointed it, by working at XML
level (and not at POM level) the produced consumer pom does not reflect
changes from extensions.
Robert Scholte:
Can you give an example?
I really thought that all the "consumer/build" stuff would make the
maven-flatten-plugin useless but it looks like it will not be the case if
working at XML level.
Robert Scholte:
Like with most questions: it depends. Most important is the support for
CI-friendly versions. In this case you won't need the flatten-maven-plugin
anymore.
However, the plugin can rewrite much more, but this happens AFTER using the pom.
That's something I don't like, because this POM was not used to build the
project, but it was reassembled afterwards.
My idea is to provide hooks to parts of the pom that might be adjusted, but
this is something we can work on during the 4.x releases
Did Romain and I miss the whole point of the "consumer/build" enhancements
or is it "just" because current implementation has not yet reached the
targets/outputs?
On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 2:56 PM Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
> Hmm, I don't get a few things of this IT:
>
> 1. the formatting seems not expected even if valid (the comments are
> finishing with the first tag for example "-->
> public class MyListener extends AbstractMavenLifecycleParticipant {
>
> @Override
> public void afterProjectsRead(final MavenSession session) throws
> MavenExecutionException {
> if (session.getCurrentProject() == null) {
> return;
> }
>
> session.getProjects().forEach(p -> {
> final Dependency dependency = new Dependency();
> dependency.setGroupId("junit");
> dependency.setArtifactId("junit");
> dependency.setVersion("3.8.1");
> p.getDependencies().add(dependency);
> });
> }
> }
>
>
> 2. If you run mvn (4 snapshot) dependency:tree you get this kind of output:
>
> [INFO] -------------< org.sonatype.mavenbook.multi:simple-webapp
> >-------------
> [INFO] Building Multi Chapter Simple Web Application Project
> 0.9-MNG6957-SNAPSHOT [6/6]
> [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar
> ]---------------------------------
> [INFO]
> [INFO] --- maven-dependency-plugin:3.1.2:tree (default-cli) @ simple-webapp
> ---
> [INFO] org.sonatype.mavenbook.multi:simple-webapp:jar:0.9-MNG6957-SNAPSHOT
> [INFO] +-
>
> org.sonatype.mavenbook.multi:simple-weather:jar:0.9-MNG6957-SNAPSHOT:compile
> [INFO] \- junit:junit:jar:3.8.1:compile
> <-- THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO SEE
> [INFO]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 3. run the build to have produced pom and cat the simple-webapp one:
>
>
> 4.0.0
>
> org.sonatype.mavenbook.multi
> simple-parent
> 0.9-MNG6957-SNAPSHOT
>
>
> simple-webapp
> Multi Chapter Simple Web Application Project
>
>
> org.sonatype.mavenbook.multi
> simple-weather
> 0.9-MNG6957-SNAPSHOT
>
>
>
> simple-webapp
>
>
>
> org.apache.maven.plugins
> maven-war-plugin
> 2.6
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As you see the dependency is not there. I guess the expected outout is:
>
>
>
> 4.0.0
> simple-webapp
> Multi Chapter Simple Web Application Project
> [description, scm, ..., all central requires sections but not build ones]
>
>
> org.sonatype.mavenbook.multi
> simple-weather
> 0.9-MNG6957-SNAPSHOT
>
>
> junit
> junit
> 3.8.1
>
>
>
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau | Blog
> | Old Blog
> | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn | Book
> <
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >
>
>
> Le lun. 4 janv. 2021 à 13:41, Robert Scholte a
> écrit :
>
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/tree/master/core-it-suite/src/test/resources/mng-6957-buildconsumer
> > is the most complete IT
> >
> > On 4-1-2021 12:59:51, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > Le lun. 4 janv. 2021 à 12:36, Robert Scholte a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > There's just one thing I want to say:
> > > I'm having trouble with the term "broken".
> > >
> >
> > Well, literally meant broken as decorelated from the user intent and
> > extension model.
> > Anyway, didn't intend to blame but more identify the blockers for a GA so
> > point was really that it seem that on the two sides only the producing
> one
> > is not yet ready since it keeps does not sanitize the model completely
> and
> > keeps build only data like comments, right? Also not yet clear for me if
> we
> > loose the extension enrichments there.
> >
> >
> > > If a Maven project could be built with M3.6.3, it can still be built
> with
> > > M4.
> > > If not, it is either regression (MNG-6957, MNG-7063) which must be
> fixed,
> > > or it requires changes to a plugin for understandable reasons
> > > (maven-pgp-plugin)
> > > AFAIK an interesting extension like the maven-tiles has been tested and
> > > still works.
> > >
> >
> > Do you have this handy, is it in our test suite? I'd like to check the
> > produced pom matches the enriched model but happy to start from something
> > already there.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Robert
> > >
> > > On 3-1-2021 19:35:25, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > > Le dim. 3 janv. 2021 à 19:04, Robert Scholte a
> > > écrit :
> > >
> > > > I don't remember all those details anymore, because I hit those in
> the
> > > > beginning.
> > > > Trying things over and over again I decided that this is probably the
> > > most
> > > > successful approach.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What of the goals was to keep the pom.xml as is as much as possible.
> > > > We can only decide for the specific Maven elements how to handle
> them,
> > we
> > > > should not decide about comments and licenses.
> > > > BTW, the license issue was hard to solve. You cannot use it from the
> > > pom's
> > > > , because there might be multiple licenses.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I disagree, it is saner IMO to evolve to support that than doing
> > > anything else.
> > > Once again you keep things which don't make sense in a consumed pom in
> > > current impl so i'd say the sucess in a few cases breaks as much cases
> so
> > > we need to revisit anyway IMHO.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The current implementation is a solid way to ensure we're not
> breaking
> > > too
> > > > much, because Maven controls the XML filters.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hmm, breaking extensions seems to break too much (I'm not speaking of
> > other
> > > parts which breaks the ecosystem there but just that is sufficient IMHO
> > to
> > > say we must check back our solution).
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Also keep in mind, that I only want Maven to decide which
> modifications
> > > > are done.
> > > >
> > >
> > > For the consumed pom I agree but it is consistent with keeping
> everything
> > > working instead of breaking too, no?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Current polyglot projects should still work, but they cannot benefit
> > from
> > > > the build/consumer functions yet.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So pom -> build model is kept, build model -> produced pom is broken?
> Is
> > it
> > > the complete status?
> > > Sounds ok for a 4.0 and a 4.1 can fix it if so.
> > > Just want to ensure first part is not broken at all.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Robert
> > > > On 3-1-2021 16:38:38, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > > > Le dim. 3 janv. 2021 à 16:18, Robert Scholte a
> > > > écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > > So what I was expecting was: raw xml model -> converted to
> unified
> > > > > consumed model -> extensions -> model processing.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is only the build pom part. You're missing the consume part,
> > where
> > > > > the xml is distributed.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes but with previous chain the consume part is "clean/normalize ->
> > dump"
> > > > since we are using consumed model - only standard model - in memory
> > > > already.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Build is raw + enrich, consumer is raw + enrich + reduce (removing
> > > > > relativePath and modules are the first examples, but much more is
> > > > possible)
> > > > >
> > > > > Going for the in memory was also my first thought, but I would
> loose
> > > > > information, hence I came up with the current implementation.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't see what you loose ot be honest.
> > > > You mentionned license but this one is in the pom so not a big deal,
> > > > comments which are undesired IMHO as mentionned and element order
> which
> > > can
> > > > really be discussed since we can desire to enforce an order to
> > normalize
> > > > consumption + it shouldn't be important since from the project point
> of
> > > > view your pom is already "broken"/lost (as all your intelligence is
> > lost
> > > by
> > > > this "not passthrough" process).
> > > > So overall I don't see what you would loose from the consumer side
> but
> > I
> > > > see what you lost from maven ecosystem side.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Again, we're at a point where we can have counter solutions, but
> > don't
> > > > > expect me to implement it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > For now I'm just trying to ensure we agree we don't want to break
> > > existing
> > > > extensions and the nice ecosystem we built after years.
> > > > This was really a move forward and it sounds like we broke it at
> maven
> > 4
> > > > without any user gain which sounds terrible.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks,
> > > > > Robert
> > > > > On 3-1-2021 15:25:21, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I kind of join Matthieu thoughts there, there is no point to work
> at
> > > xml
> > > > > level to create the consumed pom - comments is not a point since it
> > can
> > > > > commonly/easily refer to a dropped part of the pom so they should
> be
> > > > > stripped.
> > > > > Current extension model got proven adapted and adopted, using a
> lower
> > > > level
> > > > > extension API will not since XML is, even if still mainstream,
> often
> > > > > replaced by alternative configurations and to have done the work to
> > > > inject
> > > > > XML configuration programmatically compred to current option, it
> is a
> > > > pain.
> > > > > The in memory model should stick to consumed model IMHO - being
> > > > > programmatic there is no point to make it easier, worse case we can
> > add
> > > > > helper beans (injectable) but in terms of model it will not help.
> > > > >
> > > > > So what I was expecting was:
> > > > >
> > > > > raw xml model -> converted to unified consumed model -> extensions
> ->
> > > > model
> > > > > processing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Indeed, real chain adds a small processing over the first arrow
> > (inject
> > > > > versions for example) but nothing crazy and breaking this overall
> > flow
> > > > > which stays user friendly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Strictly speaking the new model is just a built-in extension for me
> > > which
> > > > > is particular because it will enforce IDE to integrate a new
> format -
> > > > > wheres polyglot extensions or others don't require static analyzis
> by
> > > > > themself not being "standard".
> > > > >
> > > > > That said, there is nothing crazy with current implementation, it
> > just
> > > > > require to be updated to be able to take extension changes into
> > > account.
> > > > > This can be done by making the extension model 'spyable' (ie if a
> > > > > dependency/plugin is added it will be reflected in the final
> written
> > > > > pom.xml).
> > > > > This sounds - instrumenting the extension model API or doing a diff
> > > after
> > > > > extension phase - like a compromise and let people gets the best of
> > > both
> > > > > worlds to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wdyt?
> > > > >
> > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > @rmannibucau | Blog
> > > > > | Old Blog
> > > > > | Github |
> > > > > LinkedIn | Book
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Le dim. 3 janv. 2021 à 14:46, Robert Scholte a
> > > > > écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Matthieu,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As you understand, something had to be changed to move Maven
> > forward.
> > > > > > I've decided to pick up that challenge and came up with the
> current
> > > > > > solution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My main concerns was that I wanted to keep the fileModel as much
> as
> > > is.
> > > > > > That includes the license, comments and element order.
> > > > > > This information if not available in the memory model, so I
> needed
> > > the
> > > > > > original pom file.
> > > > > > With that in mind, the usage of XMLFilters looks like the most
> > > > > appropriate
> > > > > > solution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am certain that XML is still the most used format, so if we can
> > > have
> > > > > > improvements for those users, I'm already very happy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And yes, there are plugins that needs to be updated, but doing
> > > nothing
> > > > is
> > > > > > not an option anymore.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are more people that share their concerns, but it took me
> > > several
> > > > > > years to reach this point.
> > > > > > We now have something that seems to work, anybody who can improve
> > or
> > > > can
> > > > > > come up with an alternative implementation can do so.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > On 3-1-2021 12:55:41, Matthieu Brouillard wrote:
> > > > > > Thanks Robert for the video link.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I fully understand the rationales behind the separation of
> > > > > > build/consumer pom and the video provides some insights on it and
> > you
> > > > > > explain the actual implementation to introduce this change.
> > > > > > Still I do not fully understand why it was decided to work on top
> > of
> > > > XML
> > > > > by
> > > > > > filtering/enhancing it instead of working at the POM (in
> > > > > > memory datamodel) level.
> > > > > > With the current understanding I have, by doing this choice of
> > > working
> > > > at
> > > > > > XML level, it looks like it was decided to bypass (if not kill)
> > core
> > > > > > extensions that enhance the POM itself and not the pom.xml ;
> here I
> > > can
> > > > > > think of (but probably not limited to):
> > > > > > - polyglot-maven: do not use XML but other format to describe the
> > POM
> > > > > > (yaml, json, kotlin, java, other XML formats, ...)
> > > > > > - jgitver-maven-plugin (or forks like
> > > maven-git-versioning-extension):
> > > > > > dynamic computation of projects version based on git history
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With the introduction of core extensions, I thought it was a move
> > to
> > > > open
> > > > > > the internals and let externals contribute to the capabilities of
> > > > maven.
> > > > > > With the move to a XML handling chain, I see it as a
> > > > restriction/regress
> > > > > in
> > > > > > favor of core closed functionalities. An example of that is what
> is
> > > > > > provided as CIFriendly stuff, IMO it could/should have been
> > provided
> > > > by a
> > > > > > plugin/extension but instead it is hard written in maven core and
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > > opened for external contribution (plugin/extension I mean).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps I am totally wrong but I think that maven core should
> > define
> > > > all
> > > > > > its expectations at an API level so that extensions/plugins could
> > > hook
> > > > at
> > > > > > this API level. The default packaging of maven could/should
> provide
> > > > > default
> > > > > > implementations of those expectations (for example reading a
> > pom.xml
> > > > file
> > > > > > to a POM model, dumping a POM to a pom-4.0.0.xml,
> > > > transforming/reducing a
> > > > > > POM to POM-consumer, dumping POM-consumer to
> > pom-consumer-5.0.0.xml,
> > > > ...)
> > > > > > and let extensions/plugins/default implementations work along the
> > > build
> > > > > > process with the API & POMs to provide different features and
> > > > > capabilities.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Matthieu
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 7:01 PM Robert Scholte wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've made a recording[1] about it, which hopefully answers most
> > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Robert
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] https://youtu.be/KDAmlNKZJto
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 31-12-2020 16:18:57, Matthieu Brouillard
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Not exactly sure what work you mean
> > > > > > > everything related to maven-xml: Build/ConsumerPomXMLFilterxxx,
> > > > > > > Build/ConsumerModelSourcexxxx and the transformer stuff.
> > > > > > > Especially, when looking at classes like CiFriendlyXMLFilter, I
> > > would
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > thought that such things could have been done elsewhere,
> working
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > object model (not on the XML stuff) especially for the BuildPom
> > > part.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > however specifically the consumer POM integrates with so many
> > > > > external
> > > > > > > ecosystems
> > > > > > > We're aligned here, this has to be stable and well defined by a
> > > > schema.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Matthieu
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 3:59 PM Bernd Eckenfels
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Not exactly sure what work you mean and I fully agree that
> > using
> > > a
> > > > > core
> > > > > > > > model should still be the API for plugins and extensions to
> > work
> > > > > with,
> > > > > > > > however specifically the consumer POM integrates with so many
> > > > > external
> > > > > > > > ecosystems, I would expect it to be defined in terms of XML
> > > Schema
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > explicite semantic (and the inherent compatibility with
> exiting
> > > > > POMs).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Gruss
> > > > > > > > Bernd
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > http://bernd.eckenfels.net
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > Von: Matthieu BROUILLARD
> > > > > > > > Gesendet: Thursday, December 31, 2020 3:19:09 PM
> > > > > > > > An: dev@maven.apache.org
> > > > > > > > Betreff: maven 4.0.0 new XML stuff
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > regarding the active work occurring for maven 4.0.0 I noticed
> > the
> > > > > > > > introduction of a lot of new stuff around SAX parsing &
> > > filtering.
> > > > > > > > I am wondering if that means that it was decided that the
> input
> > > > > format
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > maven projects will be XML forever meaning probably, among
> > > others,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > end
> > > > > > > > of polyglot extensions.
> > > > > > > > Could you explain such a move (or point to
> rationals/documents)
> > > and
> > > > > why
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > did not leverage working on the in memory object model
> allowing
> > > > > > > > extensions/plugins to contribute/hook in the chain of
> building
> > > the
> > > > > > > BuildPOM
> > > > > > > > & ConsumePOM? In the past I really thought that this move to
> > > 'Build
> > > > > vs
> > > > > > > > Consumer' POM would make clear separations between the input
> > > format
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > descriptors and the core system but I perhaps misunderstood
> > > things.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, are there plans regarding the future of core
> extensions?
> > > > > > > > With core extensions it was possible to hook into the POM
> model
> > > > > loading
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > do transformations to do dynamic changes but by working on
> the
> > > XML
> > > > > > > directly
> > > > > > > > I see a shift (if not red stop) in this
> contribution/delegation
> > > > > > > mechanism.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for your time & answers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Matthieu Brouillard
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
