I've opened an issue about POM not requiring groupId. My question is: the pom validates against schema before checking extension or is a temp pom aggregating the parent pom data the one that is checked against the schema?
On 10/4/05, Lukas Theussl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks Tony for your remarks! > > So what you are saying is that we can drop the namespace requirement if > we make sure to check the pom version instead? Would something like the > following do: > > <xs:element name="pomVersion"> > <xs:simpleType> > <xs:restriction base="xs:string"> > <xs:enumeration value="3"/> > </xs:restriction> > </xs:simpleType> > </xs:element> > > > > Another general question: I noticed that maven-project.xsd defines a > minOccurs="0" attribute for _all_ elements except the root (project). > That means that a completely empty pom is perfectly valid? I would have > thought that there should be a minimum set of elements that make up a > valid pom. It would also facilitate the tracking of some obscure error > messages that we sometimes get when a plugin tries to access an > inexistent pom element. > > Thanks again, > -Lukas > > > > Anthony B. Coates wrote: > > Since POM instances identify their POM version, there is a case that > > the namespace does not need to change with every new POM version. > > However, it sounds to me like there is a problem with the way > > "pom:validate" is conceived. > > > > If you are validate a POM instance for an older version of the POM, you > > should be using the older version of the POM Schema. I > > expect/assume/hope that Maven takes note of the POM version when it > > reads a POM instance, and doesn't just assume that any POM instance can > > be assumed to be compatible with the latest POM version. The same > > approach should apply to "pom:validate". > > > > If you do remove the namespace, I hope that each Schema version will > > strictly check the value of the POM version, so that you still get a > > sanity check that you are using the right Schema version for the right > > POM version. > > > > Cheers, Tony. > > > > On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:41:00 +0100, Lukas Theussl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Carlos Sanchez wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> I've poms without namespace which are working under 1.1b2, why are you > >>> saying it's required? > >>> > >> > >> Sure they work but they don't validate. The problem that I have > >> currently is that running 'pom:validate' on a pom without namespace > >> declaration seems to hang the msv verifier. This is probably a bug in > >> msv, but I find it quite inconvenient anyway to enforce this > >> namespace declaration. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Lukas > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
