For what it is worth, I have heard many complaints either about using XML and/or about the current structure of the XML as well. I have heard this from developers I have worked with and I have read some blogs about this too. I can't tell you where those blogs are now because I pretty much dismissed them as I like using XML myself.
Jason ________________________________________ From: Christian Edward Gruber [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 2:29 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: Re : non-xml poms in 3.x Who said anything about a reasonable person? :) I don't have such a hatred - I'm quite used to it, but it has come up in nearly every client in the last 3 years - not as a final or deal-breaking barrier to adoption, but a barrier nonetheless. I'm happy to support it - I just need a seam or hook where I can provide something that pre-processes before the maven run to generate the pom.xml. Maven itself doesn't need to support the alternate format at all. If it could be something that was auto-detected as well (or at worst, put into a settings.xml) then that'd be great. Essentially I'm doing that now with the maven-yamlpom-plugin... it's just that I have to do a separate run because it modifies the pom.xml, and so maven fails on the first sync because the pom was modified. In a pinch, this can all be handled with shell scripts wrapping maven, but I'd prefer to have a cleaner place to integrate. Christian. On Sep 4, 2009, at 5:12 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > On 2009-09-04, at 10:59 PM, Christian Edward Gruber wrote: > >> So I agree that it is a valid concern, and there needs to be a >> canonical format (which will probably be XML) which all artifacts >> are saved as - but in my source tree, it should be entirely >> possible to have an alternate way to specify, since often I've >> found that XML-hatred is a barrier to Maven adoption in some firms. >> > > I have not found this to be a concern. There's lots of other things > that are barrier but the XML has honestly never come up in any > conversations I've had. > >> You should always be able to get the pom.xml... help:canonical-pom >> would be a decent way to quickly do it, and artifacts should be >> published that way - but a Project is an object, and alternate >> serializations shouldn't be a problem. > > Therein lies the problem, the only real canonical form is the object > model. With 3 XML formats which one is the canonical format? The > first one? > >> >> I would, also as an evangelist and implementor of build systems in >> companies, encourage that a company standardize on a format, but if >> that company wants to use YAML, or some other terser, more human >> readable format for the pom, then I'm good with that. > > I'm not. Again this falls into my category of "if you want it that > way, you support it." A company can standardize on whatever it > wants, but I'm not going to hide the real cost of that. We may > ultimately decide it's not worth it having another XML format. There > are a lot more things in 3.0 that interest me then another XML format. > >> >> I used to feel more like you, Brian, but for the sheer intensity of >> hatred of XML out there (as a format for human-maintained source). >> > > Again, I've not witnessed any XML hatred or that being a > justification by a reasonable person not to use Maven. > >> The problem you're describing about one project using one and >> another using a different one - that's no different than one >> project deciding to use a different set of integration test plugins >> (invoker vs. shitty) and confusing the noobs. The bottom line is >> that you're not going to be able to constraint people from going >> for the "new thing" and messing up the inexperienced, so providing >> sane defaults with lots of room to customize is the best option, in >> my view. >> >> Christian. >> >> >> On Sep 4, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Brian Fox wrote: >> >>>> Just my 2 cents as a Maven evangelist in a big private company. >>>> Even if >>>> Maven is around for years now, basic endusers just start to get >>>> accustomed to pom.xml and Maven philosophy (really! people are >>>> far slowest to change than in OpenSource project team). >>>> >>>> Please, please don't mess everything. Small additions are fine, >>>> but I think a new format is a bad idea even if it is optional. >>>> One of advantage of Maven is standardization across all our >>>> projects. If there are several format allowed, some projects will >>>> start using new one when others are still using the former and it >>>> will lead to a total mess. >>>> >>> That's my main concern as well to be honest. >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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] >> > > Thanks, > > Jason > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Jason van Zyl > Founder, Apache Maven > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus > http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
