Completely agree. Maven's strength is that it is declarative. Anyone old
enough to remember autoconf, autoreconf, etc never wants to go back to that
world.
Hunter
On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 10:35:07 PM PDT, Romain Manni-Bucau
<rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Polyglot was a good idea but a key feature of maven is to NOT rely on
scripting to init the context (deps typically) to let IDE load it quickly
in their format.
Typically opening a gradle script in idea is often a pain and as soon as
you get any error you can't even open it to fix it (yes, ridiculous but by
design).
So while we stay with a loadable statically script I'm fine, verbosity is
not only xml but the model, using inline coordinates could already help in
the user pom (vs produced pom for repos which will not change).
Not sure it is a great fight nor relevant regarding the jdk to use since we
can support both without much effort anyway, even if it needs one more
class - we use a ton of libs so one more class (not even lib) is ok ;).
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Le mer. 7 juin 2023 à 02:31, Hunter C Payne
<hunterpayne2...@yahoo.com.invalid> a écrit :
> 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
> >
>
