I completely agree that JSON is just reinventing the wheel. But that seems
irrelevant from a marketing perspective. And HOCON is actually better than
either JSON or XML. If your potential customers first reaction to Maven is
'ick XML' then it doesn't really matter if XML is better. Just my experience
and opinion.
Hunter
On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 05:24:59 PM PDT, Gary Gregory
<garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
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
>
