I think we need to keep a goal of getting 2.1 stabilized so we can start doing releases before we start doing all new manipulations on the code. It's already been 2+ years since the 2.0 alpha...that's too long imo.
A while back we tool a list of proposals for 2.1 and IMO, it's not a good idea to start adding more. In fact, I would rather not include anything more at this point until we get 2.1 alpha out. We obviously need to get the artifact stuff wrapped up prior to the alpha release but everything else should come later. If we continue to stuff new things into 2.1 then it will probably never see the light of day. -----Original Message----- From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:31 AM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: An Attribute Based POM FWIW, I think as long as we have a standard format for POMs on a single remote repository, it doesn't hurt to accommodate all comers WRT format. XML is okay for developers familiar with it to read, but it was always intended to be rendered in some way. If we had rendering tools to give the user a decent view on the POM, all of these arguments would go away, since we could just provide additional renderers along with the different parsers. Also, if we're going to accommodate multiple XML formats (element- oriented vs. attribute-oriented) would it make more sense to give a hint of which format we're using via processing instruction at the top or something similar? If we do this, there could be 2 XML-based parsers, or 2000...as long as the shared data in the remote repository has a standard format, what's the difference? We can control the standard format on the central repository, for one thing, and definitely make sure it's as consumable as possible for older Maven versions. Others running their own internal repositories will have their own concerns WRT POM format, and can set their internal policy as they see fit. -john On Feb 12, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Tim O'Brien wrote: > > On Feb 12, 2008, at 9:34 AM, Gilles Scokart wrote: > >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Tim O'Brien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: mardi 12 février 2008 16:03 >>> To: Maven Developers List >>> Subject: Re: An Attribute Based POM >>> >>> >>> On Feb 12, 2008, at 3:58 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote: >>> >>>>> For example, we'd can group groupId/artifactId/version into one >>>>> attribute >>>>> like this: >>>>> >>>>> <dependency artifact="org.apache.maven:maven-project: >>>>> 2.0.8" [...] /> >>>> >>>> Please don't do this. This would require another parsing step after >>>> the XML >>>> parsing and introduces further error sources. Use XML to structure >>>> the data, >>>> not some proprietary format. Third-party tools dealing with the POM >>>> will >>>> also appreciate a proper/pure XML representation of the project >>>> model. >>>> Consider for instance the pain such string aggregates would cause >>>> for XSLT >>>> processing of the POM. Merging different pieces of data into a >>>> single string >>>> is in general a bad idea. >>> >>> >>> Couldn't disagree more. Certain data has a native format. >>> Consider >>> something like a 24 hour time. Is: >>> >>> <time>23:22:22.003</time> >>> >>> an "undue burden" on different parsers? No, this is reasonable. >>> This would be unreasonable: >>> >>> <time hour="23" minute="22" second="22" millis="003"/> >>> >>> The idea that we have to design data around parsers means that you >>> sacrifice usability and readability. >>> >>> I'd take it one step further than Emmanuel: >>> >>> <dependencyGroup root="org.apache.maven"> >>> <dependency artifact="maven-project:2.0.8"/> >>> <dependency artifact="continuum:continuum-model:1.1"/> >>> </dependencyGroup> >>> >>> Should be: >>> >>> <dependGroup root="org.apache.maven"> >>> maven-project:2.0.8 >>> continuum:continuum-model:1.1 >>> </dependGroup> >>> >>> XSLT can tokenize strings just fine. >>> >> >> >> Than why to use XML? Why not have simple text? > > Giles, why not simple text? People have already been working with > POMs in alternative formats that don't involve XML at all. I > guess the real question here is, why would it disturb people so > much if someone had an alternative format for a POM for every day > use, but when they published to a repo it used the standard format. > >> >> >> No seriously, keep the organisation and artefact separated from >> the version. There are plenty of use case that needs to >> identify them separately (like the management of the conflict, the >> management of the dependent projects). >> >> If you really want something more textual, I suggest you look at >> buildr. It give you something like this : >> >> AXIOM = group("axiom-api", "axiom-impl", "axiom-dom", >> :under=>"org.apache.ws.commons.axiom", version=>"1.2.4") >> AXIS2 = "org.apache.axis2:axis2:jar:1.2" >> OPENJPA = ["org.apache.openjpa:openjpa-all:jar:0.9.7", >> "net.sourceforge.serp:serp:jar:1.12.0"] >> AXIS_OF_WS = [AXIS2, AXIOM] >> >> compile.with OPENJPA, AXIS_OF_WS >> >> >> Why not? It might be user friendly (for some users...). But I >> don't want to see this in a repository. IMO, XML is >> much better. >> > > No one is talking about modifying the repository, the repository > should contain one format of POM, but there is no reason why there > cannot be a diversity of implementations. Oh wait, people here > think it would screw up "Universal Understanding". > > :-) > >> >> Gilles >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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] > --- John Casey Committer and PMC Member, Apache Maven mail: jdcasey at commonjava dot org blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/john rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/ejlife/john --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
