On 12.12.20 21:04, Will Iverson wrote:
RE: "It would be massively incompatible with the existing toolchain; not
just Maven but Gradle,SBT, static analysis tools, bazel, and everything
else that sits on top of the Maven repository system. The cost of
introducing this now vastly outweighs any
RE: "It would be massively incompatible with the existing toolchain; not
just Maven but Gradle,SBT, static analysis tools, bazel, and everything
else that sits on top of the Maven repository system. The cost of
introducing this now vastly outweighs any conceivable benefit."
As described above,
Is anyone interested in helping with this problem?
Otherwise with the advent of jdk16 we will probably see people that need to
switch to fork mode for javac, with slower builds, and we will see
complaints from users
The problem probably is is plexus compiler and the way we start javac, we
should
So there have been a few comments so far (yea) so I'm going to try to address
them here:
1) choice of formatAny format that specifies a POM should have validation
(which JSON, HOCON and XML do). YAML should be a non-starter as it has no
validation (or types and it depends on invisible
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 3:23 PM Markus KARG wrote:
>
> Okay, seems you got me wrong. The idea is not to force YOU to write JSON, but
> to allows OTHERS to do that. There are people that like JSON and YAML over
> XML, so we if would have a separating layer between the information needed by
>
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 6:53 AM Robert Scholte wrote:
> Here's my unpopular response: I'm not going to invest in attribute support
> for Maven.
> If the verbosity of the pom.xml is the first thing people complain about,
> well, then Maven is doing a pretty good job (if the build itself had
>
Okay, seems you got me wrong. The idea is not to force YOU to write JSON, but
to allows OTHERS to do that. There are people that like JSON and YAML over XML,
so we if would have a separating layer between the information needed by Maven
itself, and the data format providing that information, we
If there are no objections, I'll merge this probably Monday back to master.
Most important to me is that the regression is fixed, further optimizations and
possible refactoring can be done afterwards.
Robert
On 28-11-2020 16:23:27, Robert Scholte wrote:
Looking for reviewers to validate the
Well, don't get me wrong, I think the original question was not whether YOU
invest time in that, but more whether it makes sense that OTHERS invest in
that. In the end, this is a democratic and open project. Not every idea asked
is intended as your personal task. ;-)
-Markus
Just a side note: it is about maven 4 where deployed poms will not be dev
pom so tooling, static analyzis tools etc will follow since we will anyway
- otherwise mvn 4 and all xsd discussions are pointless.
Verbosity is a common feedback - with easiness to do in project custom
lifecycle so IMHO we
Agree with Robert here: this issue is really about "hard to author/write
POMs as they are chatty".
Then use polyglot, and let's Maven itself (or Maven + polyglot) sort out
things, but modding POM modello is something not we'd like to do... (as
many others noted, existing tooling etc).
My 5
Hi,
On 11.12.20 23:40, Will Iverson wrote:
One of the biggest complaints about Maven has long been the verbosity of
the XML format. The verbosity is due in large part to the exclusive
reliance on XML elements in Maven.
Which I can't see.
Only a few people are complainging about that...
I
Hard no. While this might be a good idea if were we starting for
scratch—I have no opinion about that—it would be massively
incompatible with the existing toolchain; not just Maven but Gradle,
SBT, static analysis tools, bazel, and everything else that sits on
top of the Maven repository system.
Json has jsonschema and completion support but it does not solve the
verbosity issue.
Most plugins solved it by using "g:a:v" syntax for dependencies.
We can enhance our parser/xsd to be polymorph IMO hoping IDE support
follows, would solve verbosity issue, looks like a quick win to me.
Le sam.
I'm with you on that, yes xml is considered old, and legacy, and
verbose. But it's got a decent validation framework, people understand
an xsd and so write a valid xml file based upon the xsd.
With json i'm unaware of any standard validation framework and schema
definition standard.
On Sat, 12
Here's my unpopular response: I'm not going to invest in attribute support for
Maven.
If the verbosity of the pom.xml is the first thing people complain about, well,
then Maven is doing a pretty good job (if the build itself had issues, one
would complain about that first, right?).
By having
Am 2020-12-12 um 11:04 schrieb Markus KARG:
Wouldn't it be a more modern and even more effective approach to add JSON
support for POMs? We could keep POM.xml for legacy reasons but add support for
POM.json files.
NOO, please! JSON is horribly to write by hand and does not have
comments.
Wouldn't it be a more modern and even more effective approach to add JSON
support for POMs? We could keep POM.xml for legacy reasons but add support for
POM.json files.
-Markus
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Will Iverson [mailto:wiver...@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 11. Dezember 2020
18 matches
Mail list logo
