On Nov 24, 2013, at 12:19 AM, Manfred Moser <manf...@mosabuam.com> wrote:
> >> By separating "consumption" and "production" metadata formats, we'll be >> able to evolve production format more aggressively. For example, it >> would be nice to have Tycho-specific configuration markup inside <build> >> section. This is not currently possible because all poms must be >> compatible with the same model. > > I like the idea of consumptions specifics. It would be great if we could > agree/define some sort of standard on how to declare suitability for > artifacts for certain deployment scenarios .. I don't believe this requires separate documents to support this. > e.g. it is jar suitable for Java 6, 7, 8, 9 or what, what about running on > Android, or on some embedded Java version profile. > > I dont believe that the previous approaches of using classifiers is just > not powerful enough. And I also agree that we should potentially just > stick to the existing format. > > E.g. nothing stops us from declaring a standard for e.g. for a bunch of > properties like > > <properties> > <runtime.android>true</runtime.android> > <runtime.java6>true</runtime.java6> > </properties> > > or > <properties> > <runtime.android>false</runtime.android> > <runtime.java6>false</runtime.java6> > <runtime.java7>true</runtime.java7> > </properties> > > Of course we should put more thought into this but declaring a standard > sooner rather than later could help a lot with the oncoming wave of > libraries that will not work for Java 6 anymore and others going forward > with e.g. Java 8 only and so on. > > Manfred > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------
