Are you saying that if you are looking forward to dealing with more
verbosity, you should interview at Atlassian? :)
On 12/02/2008, at 4:47 PM, Don Brown wrote:
Atlassian is hiring ... :)
On 2/12/08, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMO we should strive to make the pom even more verbose... So all us
maven folk can keep our jobbies :-P
--jason
-----Original Message-----
From: Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:35:35
To:"Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org>
Subject: Re: An Attribute Based POM
Yes, I happen to agree with the theory Shane and Jason outlined and
is
why I accepted the status quo for 5 years :) But I always thought the
Maven dependencies tag in Ant looked better and was easier to read. I
think the expanded format makes more sense for machine-generated
and -
read documents.
Perhaps XML isn't the right choice in the first place - but it is
well
tooled and familiar to Java weenies. Maybe one day IDE support will
be
ubiquitously used and it won't matter, but for now a lot of people
look at POMs and edit them in vim and would like them to be simpler.
The more important thing is remaining consistent throughout the
change
IMO.
- Brett
On 12/02/2008, at 4:22 PM, Don Brown wrote:
Whether an attribute-based design is "proper" is a less important
question than what makes Maven more usable. Form should follow
function. What users care about is more readable POMs, less typing,
and less clutter. I've been really impressed with the Maven team
adopting a more programmatic approach to Maven recently, and this
change will go a long way to making Maven more usable and less
curse-worthy.
Don
On 2/12/08, Shane Isbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I know that it is not always clear when to use and attribute and
when to use
an element; but typically, attributes are used to attach metadata
or
nonessential information about an element, while subelements are
essential
parts of the parent element. To me, the groupId, artifactId and
version
would be essential parts of a dependency element.
Shane
On Feb 10, 2008 10:45 PM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I've always wanted to see an attribute based POM, so based on
Nicolas'
suggestion I killed some time after waking up early this morning
to do
it.
JIRA: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3397
Here is a build to try:
http://people.apache.org/~brett/apache-maven-2.0.9-SNAPSHOT-terse-bin.tar.gz
and svn branch:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/components/branches/maven-2.0.x-terse
Here are two different files for comparison (it halved the size):
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/archiva/trunk/pom.xml?content-type=text%2Fplain&view=co
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/archiva/trunk/pom-4.1.0.xml?content-type=text%2Fplain&view=co
What I did is basically convert all the primitive types in the
model
to attributes. I think more could be done (flattening lists, doing
the
same for plugin configuration elements), but this gets a big win
at
least in the dependencies section for minimal work.
It should be completely backwards compatible. It detects v4.0.0
and
reads it like it used to (then internally converts to the 4.1.0
Java
model).
Here's some notes on the implementation so far (again, go easy, I
just
whipped this up today and it's not production ready):
- I see this as a stepping stone to the final solution. I've said
this
before, but I think the POM should separate the build information
from
the project metadata (particularly that stored in the
repository). I
think we need to take baby steps towards that though.
- this could feasibly be applied to the settings and profile files
too.
- I switched to StAX in the process. This is likely going to
introduce
some small quirks we need to iron out (like the hack I added to
parse
Trygve's name - why did we ever allow that!) I think ideally we'd
use
the Xpp3Reader for 4.0.0 and the StaxReader for 4.1.0 for best
compatibility. This would also fix the problem in that I've just
removed the Xpp3Reader and so some plugins may choke. I'm sure the
release plugin won't be happy, for example.
- There is probably a slight performance overhead in reading v4
POMs
since it repopulates the model twice. I haven't measured it but if
it's an issue we could optimise the reader/converter. It also adds
about 200k to the maven-model JAR.
- It is very close to detecting based on namespace so we could
enforce
the use of that instead.
Enjoy!
Cheers,
Brett
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
