On Nov 2, 2010, at 8:25 AM, Brett Porter wrote: > On 01/11/2010, at 6:37 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > >> At any rate if anyone has ideas or documents I'll integrate it into the >> proposal I'm writing. I'm moving pretty fast and I plan to release a version >> of the Maven Shell next week, and then a couple weeks later a version with >> Polyglot capabilities. So if you have thoughts I'd appreciate them sooner >> rather then later. > > > Not had time to read all the mail on list in the last few hours, but in the > interest of sooner rather than later... > > I've posted some thoughts on this to the list before, and planned to dig it > up by Wednesday for the meetup. I'd also hacked together support into the > branch of 2.x that works with attributes. At the most basic, I'm thinking we > should deploy a trimmed version under the 4.0.0 model to the repository as > the interchangable format under the current layout, then the actual model as > it stands at the time separately. >
You have absolutely no idea how the information would be used. Why would you, as a first step, reduce the model before you even know how it's going to be used. To me the order of precedence is: 1. vN model to vN model translation. Albeit no one here may be interested in that because it's specifically for Polyglot but this one is relatively simple. Straight up translation and deployment of both models. 2. vN+1 to VN model translation. This is what we should be most interested in for 3.1. where the operating model for Maven 3.1 (4.1) must be downgraded to operate with Maven 3.0/2.2 (4.0.0) and both models deployed. Let's please be realistic about the work that's going to be done. Selective reduction of the model is a nice idea but not required, and not going to impact interoperability. That's a nice to have in the future but we should be pragmatic and tackle the simpler forms of interoperability before tackling something more complicated. > It would be nice to consider a long term migration to extensible metadata for > this aspect of the repository, while retaining original artifacts as a > separate file. > Again, we should start simple. We have consider forward and backward metadata in p2 repositories and that is a lot of work and a ton of testing. I've absolutely no evidence here in the last year that this project can deliver that. I would propose we do work with the p2 folks as their repository metadata format is more sophisticated then ours and ultimately merging the metadata models would make sense as then we have a whole other body of developers working on the problem. But seriously, I urge folks to be pragmatic and tackle the simple models of interoperability. We don't need to boil the ocean to make 3.1 work. I think model reduction while coming up with a plan for interoperability is a recipe for disaster. > Cheers, > - Brett > > -- > Brett Porter > br...@apache.org > http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl --------------------------------------------------------- What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people. -- Paul Graham
