/** For projects that want to keep all {@link FlattenDescriptor optional
POM elements}. */
FlattenMode.minimum
now I suddenly understand one of the messages from a user. This is indeed
not what I would have expected when using minimum. I guess the result
would look like the release-pom.xml.
My definition of minimum was: only those elements required to be able to
use this file as a dependency. And this is the absolute minimum, without
these elements your build will probably break.
It is worth breaking backwards compatibility? I think just changing the
definition will cause a lot of issues.
Instead I'd prefer to rename it to 'minimized' and break the build if
someone still uses minimum, add an explanation.
It looks more and more to me that flatten floats between consumer-pom and
effective-pom. The first one is the minimized, possibly with extra
elements if the repository manager used for distribution has extra rules.
Then we have we effective-pom, which is an xml merge of all the parents,
no more logic at all. However, this could contain too much elements.
So we might need to rethink this a bit: users must choose between
consumer-pom + some additional elements OR effective-pom minus some
elements. Both must at least contain the minimized elements. For the first
one I'd prefer to have control over the elements to choose, the latter can
be free and for that reason should be made extendable.
Since consumer-pom is still reserved for Apache Maven, we might want to
call it dependable-pom.
WDYT?
Robert
Op Sat, 14 Feb 2015 12:17:45 +0100 schreef Robert Scholte
<codeh...@sourcegrounds.com>:
Hi Jörg,
I think your adjustment of rev. 20330 to the
optional-elements-modeMinimum/verify.groovy is incorrect.
This project results in a jar so there's no reason to keep
dependencyManagement here: all dependencies should be resolved.
What I'm missing is a project *using* this bom. I seem to be missing
some parts of the pattern, because to me it still would look like this
change is not required: a jar having a bom as dependency with 'import'
scope should still have the same result.
thanks,
Robert
Op Sat, 14 Feb 2015 11:24:46 +0100 schreef Jörg Hohwiller
<jo...@j-hohwiller.de>:
Hi Robert,
you can't use attributes unless you do the parsing yourself. I'd still
love to see ITs showing the usage, it is still not there.
Did you have a look at my BOM IT? Probably you missed it...
https://svn.codehaus.org/mojo/trunk/mojo/flatten-maven-plugin/src/it/projects/bom
For attributes I wanted first to discuss and then add ITs and implement.
Regards
Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
