I think there could be one not yet discussed drawback of attribute
based pom content.
Most (or all?) xml parsers will not keep track of spacing between
attributes, so any tool that writes the pom (release plugin?) might
mess up formatting..
Disclaimer: I haven't actually checked..
Milos
On Mon
Hi there,
I read through this discussion as a Maven user and (sometimes) plugin
developer and also like the idea of more readable POMs. But I also
agree with Jörg's opinion:
+1 for more readable POMs
I personally like the idea of the attributes because it makes
it a lot easier to write
On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 12:51 +0100, Fabian Christ wrote:
The problem with the pattern dependency
groupId=org.apache.maven.archiva artifactId= are the missing line
breaks and spaces. Your can't find the information of interest in such
a string. So people will start adding line breaks and you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi there,
just to give my feedback on the thread:
+1 for NOT overloading 2.1
When it is about further versions and long term future of maven:
- -infinity for
artifact=org.apache.maven:maven-project:2.0.8
How do you want to express versions ranges
février 2008 16:03
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: An Attribute Based POM
On Feb 12, 2008, at 3:58 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
For example, we'd can group groupId/artifactId/version into one
attribute
like this:
dependency artifact=org.apache.maven:maven-project:
2.0.8
On 13/02/2008, at 7:15 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
Does the refactoring of the XML give us any new functionality
besides only 'looking better'?
No, but it seems that's reason enough :) The technical underpinnings
do give the value of being able to add things to the model now,
however, and
I don't buy into the objection that simplifying the POM is too late. If
there is not a 4.1, there will be a 5.0. Eventually the POM will change --
if it doesn't happen with attributes, it will be for another reason. The
schema dictates what is valid/invalid. If people want verbosity, let them
there (there is a transitivity=false that you can
add).
Gilles
2008/2/11, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
I've always wanted to see an attribute based POM, so based on Nicolas'
suggestion I killed some time after waking up early this morning to do
it.
JIRA: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG
would be for plugins, executions,
goals, dependencies as child of dependencyManagement...
Nico.
2008/2/11, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
I've always wanted to see an attribute based POM, so based on Nicolas'
suggestion I killed some time after waking up early this morning to do
to see an attribute based POM, so based on Nicolas'
suggestion I killed some time after waking up early this morning to do
it.
JIRA: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3397
Here is a build to try:
http://people.apache.org/~brett/apache-maven-2.0.9-SNAPSHOT-terse-bin.tar.gz
and svn
I like the attribute based POM, but we can reduce more the XML. For
example, we'd can group groupId/artifactId/version into one attribute like
this:
dependency artifact=org.apache.maven:maven-project:2.0.8
scope=runtime classifier=something/
An other solution would be to group dependencies
For example, we'd can group groupId/artifactId/version into one attribute
like this:
dependency artifact=org.apache.maven:maven-project:2.0.8 [...] /
Please don't do this. This would require another parsing step after the XML
parsing and introduces further error sources. Use XML to structure
Well, I'd like to improve rather the dependencies element:
dependencyManagement
dependencies
dependency groupId=javax.activation artifactId=activation
version=1.1/
/dependencies
dependencies groupId=org.apache.maven.archiva version=1.1-SNAPSHOT
dependency
From a commercial perspective... in an interview when I ask 'do you understand
maven?' I want the prospective consultant/employee to say 'yes' and I want to
know that that means they can grok poms... if you allow custom formats you
just don't get that and we end up going the way of ant...
big
don't get that and we end up going the way of ant...
I don't think anyone here is proposing a free-for-all. But an
attribute-based POM seems to be something that's popular so we can
pursue it. There will never be any scripting in the POM and never any
general XSLT swizzling. That would
: An Attribute Based POM
Are you talking about the divergence of the thread, or the original
feature?
I'm still in favour of renaming 2.0.9 to 2.1 and starting to add
features to a stable code base. After all, we already have.
- Brett
On 13/02/2008, at 4:12 AM, Brian E. Fox wrote:
I think we
List
Subject: Re: An Attribute Based POM
Are you talking about the divergence of the thread, or the original
feature?
I'm still in favour of renaming 2.0.9 to 2.1 and starting to add
features to a stable code base. After all, we already have.
- Brett
On 13/02/2008, at 4:12 AM, Brian E. Fox wrote
the light of day.
-Original Message-
From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:31 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: An Attribute Based POM
FWIW, I think as long as we have a standard format for POMs on a
single remote repository, it doesn't hurt
12, 2008 8:31 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: An Attribute Based POM
FWIW, I think as long as we have a standard format for POMs on a
single remote repository, it doesn't hurt to accommodate all comers
WRT format.
XML is okay for developers familiar with it to read, but it was
always
then it will probably never see the
light of day.
-Original Message-
From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:31 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: An Attribute Based POM
FWIW, I think as long as we have a standard format for POMs on a
single remote repository
From a commercial perspective... in an interview when I ask 'do you understand
maven?' I want the prospective consultant/employee to say 'yes' and I want to
know that that means they can grok poms... if you allow custom formats you
just don't get that and we end up going the way of ant...
You
2008 16:03
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: An Attribute Based POM
On Feb 12, 2008, at 3:58 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
For example, we'd can group groupId/artifactId/version into one
attribute
like this:
dependency artifact=org.apache.maven:maven-project:
2.0.8 [...] /
Please don't do
:55 AM, Tim O'Brien wrote:
On Feb 12, 2008, at 9:34 AM, Gilles Scokart wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Tim O'Brien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: mardi 12 février 2008 16:03
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: An Attribute Based POM
On Feb 12, 2008, at 3:58 AM, Benjamin
This is getting pretty far afield from the original email in the
thread, but I'd say this is a perfect reason for separating the
statement of dependencies associated with a particular artifact on
the remote repository from the POM used to build it. We can (and do)
deploy the original POM
On Feb 12, 2008, at 9:34 AM, Gilles Scokart wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Tim O'Brien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: mardi 12 février 2008 16:03
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: An Attribute Based POM
On Feb 12, 2008, at 3:58 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
For example
We could deploy a generated POM that reflects the enabled profiles
and the
maven model used to build the artifact.
This won't work when the poms are used for inheritance out of the
repository. Suddenly a property meant to be resolved at build time to
something on the developer's machine is
-Original Message-
From: Tim O'Brien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: mardi 12 février 2008 16:03
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: An Attribute Based POM
On Feb 12, 2008, at 3:58 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
For example, we'd can group groupId/artifactId/version
Right of course, but the core idea is that XML doesn't drive the
format or structure of data.It should tell you guys something that
negative reactions to Maven like Buildr use the colon notation.
Maven itself prints out dependencies using the colon notation when you
run the
On Feb 12, 2008, at 3:58 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
For example, we'd can group groupId/artifactId/version into one
attribute
like this:
dependency artifact=org.apache.maven:maven-project:2.0.8 [...] /
Please don't do this. This would require another parsing step after
the XML
parsing
On 12-Feb-08, at 1:39 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
I like the attribute based POM, but we can reduce more the XML. For
example, we'd can group groupId/artifactId/version into one
attribute like
this:
dependency artifact=org.apache.maven:maven-project:2.0.8
scope=runtime classifier=something
On 12/02/2008, at 3:33 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Sure, I think it's important not to conflate additions to the simple
maneuver to attributes.
Agreed - what Niall proposed was in the scope of simplifying the
current POM, but adding new features like excludeAll is not.
Also just looking
Sure, I think it's important not to conflate additions to the simple
maneuver to attributes.
Also just looking over the the thread, I don't think dependencyGroups
are necessary as I think many people, from my experience, expect a
dependency on a POM to yield the same result even though it
I am very much for allowing simple types to be attribute-based. I think that
alone is worth the addition to Maven 2.1.
Paul
Well I'm actually thinking that we just make the change to allow
optional version for artifacts in the reactor, chopping the whole
section :)
- Brett
On 12/02/2008, at 2:21 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
Actually, there wasn't a single dependency in that pom. Those were
all managed dependency
: An Attribute Based POM
Heh, you would read it that way...well, I guess we do have a few crazy
POMs with pages and pages of Ant tags. If you love swimming in XML,
we have a small ocean over here :)
Don
On 2/12/08, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying that if you are looking forward
Developers List dev@maven.apache.org
Subject: Re: An Attribute Based POM
Are you saying that if you are looking forward to dealing with more
verbosity, you should interview at Atlassian? :)
On 12/02/2008, at 4:47 PM, Don Brown wrote:
Atlassian is hiring ... :)
On 2/12/08, Jason Dillon [EMAIL
--jason
-Original Message-
From: Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:35:35
To:Maven Developers List dev@maven.apache.org
Subject: Re: An Attribute Based POM
Yes, I happen to agree with the theory Shane and Jason outlined and
is
why I accepted
To:Maven Developers List dev@maven.apache.org
Subject: Re: An Attribute Based POM
Yes, I happen to agree with the theory Shane and Jason outlined and is
why I accepted the status quo for 5 years :) But I always thought the
Maven dependencies tag in Ant looked better and was easier to read. I
IMO we should strive to make the pom even more verbose... So all us maven folk
can keep our jobbies :-P
--jason
-Original Message-
From: Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:35:35
To:Maven Developers List dev@maven.apache.org
Subject: Re: An Attribute Based POM
be essential parts of a dependency element.
Shane
On Feb 10, 2008 10:45 PM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've always wanted to see an attribute based POM, so based on
Nicolas'
suggestion I killed some time after waking up early this morning
to do
it.
JIRA: http
,
I've always wanted to see an attribute based POM, so based on Nicolas'
suggestion I killed some time after waking up early this morning to do
it.
JIRA: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3397
Here is a build to try:
http://people.apache.org/~brett/apache-maven-2.0.9-SNAPSHOT-terse
the
elements are easier to read, not necessarily to type but users trump
all.
Shane
On Feb 10, 2008 10:45 PM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've always wanted to see an attribute based POM, so based on
Nicolas'
suggestion I killed some time after waking up early this morning
be essential parts of a dependency element.
Shane
On Feb 10, 2008 10:45 PM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've always wanted to see an attribute based POM, so based on Nicolas'
suggestion I killed some time after waking up early this morning to do
it.
JIRA: http
sure but each project should not do that and using standard OO principles i
can encapsulate it in reusable artifacts
i average 5 deps per artifact and have (9 different) assemblies that result in
about 84 jars each, with no dependency management sections and i have
reproducible builds
by
Actually, there wasn't a single dependency in that pom. Those were all
managed dependency declarations. I'm not surprised to see something like
that, however it would really be better if it was:
dependencyManagement
dependency groupId=org.apache.maven.archiva
artifactId=bill-of-materials
Based POM
On Feb 11, 2008 1:23 PM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm collecting these up to put back into the wiki later on
Please, add also:
dependency ...
excludeAll/
/dependency
or something similar.
though
this initial attempt is intended not to change the model just yet
IMO
You can change the tool to make a bad pom look good but at the end of the day
there is something wrong if your declared dependency list looks like that...
Here are two different files for comparison (it halved the size):
On Feb 11, 2008 1:23 PM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm collecting these up to put back into the wiki later on
Please, add also:
dependency ...
excludeAll/
/dependency
or something similar.
though
this initial attempt is intended not to change the model just yet
(though it's
/
dependency artifactId=core-logging/
/dependencyGroup
/dependencyVersion
/dependencies
On Feb 11, 2008 11:40 AM, Niall Pemberton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008 6:45 AM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've always wanted to see an attribute based POM, so based on
Nicolas
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008 6:45 AM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've always wanted to see an attribute based POM, so based on Nicolas'
suggestion I killed some time after waking up early this morning to do
it.
JIRA: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3397
Here
On Feb 11, 2008 6:45 AM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've always wanted to see an attribute based POM, so based on Nicolas'
suggestion I killed some time after waking up early this morning to do
it.
JIRA: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3397
Here is a build to try
On 2/12/08, Michael McCallum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can change the tool to make a bad pom look good but at the end of the
day
there is something wrong if your declared dependency list looks like
that...
How come? To get reproducible builds, you need to specify the versions of
all your
verbose... So all us
maven folk can keep our jobbies :-P
--jason
-Original Message-
From: Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:35:35
To:Maven Developers List dev@maven.apache.org
Subject: Re: An Attribute Based POM
Yes, I happen to agree with the theory Shane and Jason
.
Doing this would require...
2. Getting away from xs:all and defining an order for child elements
throughout the XSD.
On Feb 11, 2008, at 12:45 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
Hi,
I've always wanted to see an attribute based POM, so based on
Nicolas' suggestion I killed some time after waking up
of the
container elements, dependencies, plugins, exclusions, profiles.
Doing this would require...
2. Getting away from xs:all and defining an order for child elements
throughout the XSD.
On Feb 11, 2008, at 12:45 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
Hi,
I've always wanted to see an attribute based POM, so
Hi,
I've always wanted to see an attribute based POM, so based on Nicolas'
suggestion I killed some time after waking up early this morning to do
it.
JIRA: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3397
Here is a build to try:
http://people.apache.org/~brett/apache-maven-2.0.9-SNAPSHOT-terse
always wanted to see an attribute based POM, so based on
Nicolas' suggestion I killed some time after waking up early this
morning to do it.
JIRA: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3397
Here is a build to try:
http://people.apache.org/~brett/apache-maven-2.0.9-SNAPSHOT-terse-bin.tar.gz
and svn
57 matches
Mail list logo
