On 12/02/2008, at 3:33 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Sure, I think it's important not to conflate additions to the simple maneuver to attributes.
Agreed - what Niall proposed was in the scope of simplifying the current POM, but adding new features like excludeAll is not.
Also just looking over the the thread, I don't think dependencyGroups are necessary as I think many people, from my experience, expect a dependency on a POM to yield the same result even though it doesn't.
I think you're thinking of a different thing we've called dependency groups in the past (they were named groups that you could drop in with one declaration, kind of like id/refid uses in Ant tasks, no?). I think Niall is just looking for a better way to avoid a long list of the same groupId/version. I think there's merit to that for groups and versions as long as it remains clear and sequential - you don't want to be asking yourself whether a version is coming from a management section, the parent tag, or elsewhere.
Anyway, at this stage I'm just gathering further POM simplifications to evaluate.
- Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
