Just had a second thought on this :) I think we can forget about supporting pom inheritance for bundle lists. We have the partial bundle lists for this. This leaves us with profiles which should be easy to support.
Regards Carsten 2011/11/5 Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]>: > 2011/11/5 Jukka Zitting <[email protected]>: >> Hi, >> >> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Yes, but the tooling point only applies partially - there is no >>> tooling for the various plugin configurations including the new >>> configuration for this plugin. So there is no tooling support for that >>> regardless which way we go. >> >> At least Eclipse with m2e will automatically introspect plugins to >> find out what configuration options they support. With that >> information I have automatic validation, code completion and >> context-sensitive documentation for plugin configuration. That's >> obviously not a killer feature, but still nice to have. As a user of >> the plugin I'd rather live with a bit more verbose and less coherent >> POM file than lose this and other features like inheritance or >> profiles. > > Sure, so far I haven't seen a use case for inheritance and profiles > when it comes to bundle lists - which of course doesn't mean that they > don't exist. > > But what I've seen is typos and all kind of maintenance problems if > the information has to be maintained at more than one place. Before > the bundle list we used an internal way which is pretty similar to > this new one and all types of user errors occured. :) > > Regards > Carsten > >> BR, >> >> Jukka Zitting >> > > > > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > [email protected] > -- Carsten Ziegeler [email protected]
