Playing a bit of devil's advocate here: while I've not used it, there is a maven polyglot plugin that IIRC let's you author your POM in other formats. But yeah, XML can be a pain but XML Schema is super handy in tooling and editors. In the meantime, JSON is just reinventing the wheel...
Gary On Tue, Jun 6, 2023, 20:02 Hunter C Payne <hunterpayne2...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > Sorry to be glib. I apologize. But I did have a point. The attitude > that Guillaume has about my emacs (which has been updated more recently > than either the JVM or your IDE) is exactly the same attitude I face when I > try to get new users to use Maven. In the case of Maven, it is use of XML > for the pom, in the case of emacs its all the weird key bindings (which you > actually already know because of bash). I hope this actually helps. > > Hunter > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 04:42:10 PM PDT, Hunter C Payne < > hunterpayne2...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > > Ok, sonny...go back to using software I wrote to do your development. > Hunter > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 03:47:56 PM PDT, Guillaume Nodet < > gno...@apache.org> wrote: > > Sounds like the only really plausible answer ! So if they can stay on a > runtime which is 10 years old, an editor which has been released nearly 38 > years ago (well, not the latest version of course, but still...), why can't > they stay on maven 3.9 which is a few months old ? > > My proposal was to support critical bug fixes (i.e. security or no > work-around, but that can always be discussed) on the latest branches > supporting LTS JDK for some time..., so 3.x for JDK 8, 4.x for JDK 17 and > maybe 5.x for JDK 21 or 24 or whatever the LTS jdk would be at that time. > That would be a change from what has been done for the past 15 years, as > looking at history, I think 2.0.11 was the only micro version ever released > after the next minor version. > > Guillaume > > Le mar. 6 juin 2023 à 23:05, Hunter C Payne > <hunterpayne2...@yahoo.com.invalid> a écrit : > > > emacs > > Hunter > > > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 11:19:43 AM PDT, Guillaume Nodet < > > gno...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > One question for people that want JDK 8 support. What IDE do they use > to > > develop ? Because none of the actual IDE is running JDK 8, though they > can > > be used by JDK 8, just like maven with toolchains. > > So really, the argument does not really stand, but for the very minority > of > > devs still using emacs/vim. > > It really comes down to ease of use (i.e. not having to use --release > flag > > or to setup a toolchain) vs staying on JDK for 10 more years. > > > > Le mar. 6 juin 2023 à 18:32, Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org> a > écrit > > : > > > > > Am 2023-06-06 um 07:42 schrieb Hervé Boutemy: > > > > it's not about *one not wanting* to upgrade (anybody can use JDK 17 > if > > > they want currently) > > > > > > > > it's about *one forcing everybody else* to upgrade (and enter the > > > toolchain setup question) > > > > > > EXACTLY! > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------ > > Guillaume Nodet > > > > > > -- > ------------------------ > Guillaume Nodet >
