On 11-Dec-08, at 6:48 PM, Shane Isbell wrote:
I'm encountering an issue with Byldan (.NET version of Maven) and
since this
is a general problem, I thought I'd raise it here on the list. I
need to
extend the pom model to include information like the key token id of
the
.NET assembly. Using the modelVersion element of the pom isn't
appropriate
to indicate these platform type extensions.
The key here is to provide enough information in the pom to allow
the build
tool to choose the implementation of the ModelTransformer it needs.
For
example, if Maven sees Maven:4.0.0, then it chooses
PomClassicTransformer to
read the information into the canonical data format. If Maven sees
dotnet:1.0.0, then Maven could use DotnetModelTransformer, and so on.
Some ideas:
1) qualify modelVersion with platform: dotnet:1.0.0, maven:4.0.0
2) new platform tag
3) use of namespaces
4) Some unique id that maps to transformer
I'm leaning toward (4) as it is more future proof to changes.
Thoughts?
But you still probably want to account for different versions of the
model. I think we also need to look at Bryon Jacob's proposal again
about extensibility with validation.
Thanks,
Shane
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
People develop abstractions by generalizing from concrete examples.
Every attempt to determine the correct abstraction on paper without
actually developing a running system is doomed to failure. No one
is that smart. A framework is a resuable design, so you develop it by
looking at the things it is supposed to be a design of. The more
examples
you look at, the more general your framework will be.
-- Ralph Johnson & Don Roberts, Patterns for Evolving Frameworks
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
