On May 27, 2009, at 10:31 PM, Peter Janes wrote:
I was in the process of writing a similar (but much longer)
response, but Christian's covers most of the same ground. I've only
got two points to add.
Point 1: I think it's important not to conflate identifiers with
other attributes. In particular, "scope" and "optional" shouldn't
be considered part of an identifier: foo:bar:1:jar is exactly the
same thing whether it's in test scope or not. Reusing one of
Christian's examples, you'd wind up with
<dependency id="org.easymock:easymock:2.4:jar" scope="test"
optional="false"/>
(Ignoring the fact that attributes are un-Maveny, of course---since
we're bringing up "annoying" things! Note that I've also updated
the example slightly to use version:packaging, which is more
sortable.)
Point 2: Using URI syntax would mean you can take advantage of the
URI facilities that exist in pretty much every language used today.
In Java, for example, it would be easy to add a handler that would
be applied to anything that supports URIs; you'd then be able to use
Maven's repository resolution to retrieve resources.
Peter J.
Cool. Now that we've actually had some discussion on the subject I'll
jump in with how I really feel.
First, there are definitely some aspects to this that I like. I
definitely would prefer the shorter syntax when having to enter it on
a command line.
OTOH, in the pom I would really prefer the attribute syntax Brett
demonstrated quite a while ago. It shortened the pom considerably.
IIRC, doesn't the Maven 3 work abstract out the pom processing so that
pretty much any syntax can be used? While I like the flexibility of
that, having everybody and their brother create their own syntax would
be a disaster.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
