Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

If you look at my suggested sample POM, you are able to define additions to the lifecycle for a specific project or for a mix-in *from the POM*... user is free to shoot their own foot off if they want to On 20 October 2016 at 17:24, Andreas Sewe < s...@st.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote: >

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

Stephen Connolly wrote: > * we should let the user define lifecycles directly in the Pom (ok, maybe we > don't *encourage it*) More packaging-related phases in the default lifecycle. I very much like the idea of a standard lifecycle, as it often forces you to rethink your project's structure.

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

Stephen Connolly wrote: > So now that I have a spec for the PDTs drafted, I have been thinking of how > that could influence Maven 5. Some things that came to mind, in no particular > order: May I suggest support for custom "transformation rules" when inheriting a value from the parent POM.

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

Stephen Connolly wrote: > https://hjson.org/ was what I had in mind... but it would be awesome if for > dependencies we didn't have to quote, e.g. > > scopes { > compile: [ > org.slf4j:slf4j-api::1.8.0::jar > ] > test: [ > junit:junit::4.12::jar > ] > } > > which is not valid

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

https://hjson.org/ was what I had in mind... but it would be awesome if for dependencies we didn't have to quote, e.g. scopes { compile: [ org.slf4j:slf4j-api::1.8.0::jar ] test: [ junit:junit::4.12::jar ] } which is not valid hjson as in hjson you would have to write scopes {

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

Stephen Connolly wrote: > Hmmm shower thinking now has me pondering if a custom DSL might be > better... something close to human friendly JSON with exceptions for > dependency declaration so that they are always specified as g:a:p:v:c:t > with the optional p and c being empty, e.g. g:a::v::t For

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote: > Hmmm shower thinking now has me pondering if a custom DSL might be > better... something close to human friendly JSON with exceptions for > dependency declaration so that they are always specified as

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:12:42 +0200, Christian Schulte wrote: Am 10/16/16 um 02:03 schrieb Stephen Connolly: On 16 Oct 2016, at 00:07, Christian Schulte wrote: Any thoughts about how to name that new build pom? project.mvn or pom.mvn But only if we move

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

On 17 October 2016 at 01:25, Christian Schulte wrote: > Am 10/15/16 um 15:20 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > > * Pom doesn't need to be XML any more... (maybe we want to keep XML > though... just a less verbose form) > > Maybe XML really isn't the way to go. Whenever I look at an

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

Am 10/15/16 um 15:20 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > * Pom doesn't need to be XML any more... (maybe we want to keep XML though... > just a less verbose form) Maybe XML really isn't the way to go. Whenever I look at an XML file, it appears to be a mixture of meta-data, data and behaviour/logic. Last

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

Am 10/15/16 um 19:32 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > I'm thinking that we still want a dependency management section I think dependency management is a must have. That's a build tool feature to allow overriding dependency details from the consumed PDT. What is different here is that instead of having

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

Am 10/15/16 um 16:26 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > Thinking out loud... perhaps something like > > [version="..."] packaging="..."> > [ [relativePath="...']/> > > [] > [] > ... > [] Looking at this from a syntax point of view only, we will run into those "XML element declaration order

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

uot;cdutz". > > > Chris > > > Von: Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 16. Oktober 2016 13:49:39 > An: Maven Developers List > Betreff: Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5 > > Let us know

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

script:;>> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 16. Oktober 2016 13:33:29 > An: Maven Developers List > Betreff: Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5 > > Adding a section to the wiki to help track this > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/POM+Model+Version+5.0.0 > > On 16 Octo

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

, 16. Oktober 2016 13:33:29 > An: Maven Developers List > Betreff: Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5 > > Adding a section to the wiki to help track this > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/POM+Model+Version+5.0.0 > > On 16 October 2016 at 04:12, Christian Schulte

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

Adding a section to the wiki to help track this https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/POM+Model+Version+5.0.0 On 16 October 2016 at 04:12, Christian Schulte wrote: > Am 10/16/16 um 02:03 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > >> On 16 Oct 2016, at 00:07, Christian Schulte

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

Am 10/16/16 um 02:03 schrieb Stephen Connolly: >> On 16 Oct 2016, at 00:07, Christian Schulte wrote: >> Any thoughts about how to name that new build pom? > > project.mvn or pom.mvn > > But only if we move to a non-xml DSL > > If we are still XML then I say stick with pom.xml

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

Sent from my iPhone > On 16 Oct 2016, at 00:07, Christian Schulte wrote: > >> Am 10/16/16 um 00:57 schrieb Stephen Connolly: >> We only have to generate a "consumer pom" in modelVersion 4.0.0... and that >> need only be best effort, and will be generated off the PDT ... the

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

On Sunday 16 October 2016, Christian Schulte wrote: > Am 10/16/16 um 00:57 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > > We only have to generate a "consumer pom" in modelVersion 4.0.0... and > that > > need only be best effort, and will be generated off the PDT ... the new > Pom > > schema is

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

Am 10/16/16 um 00:57 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > We only have to generate a "consumer pom" in modelVersion 4.0.0... and that > need only be best effort, and will be generated off the PDT ... the new Pom > schema is what drives generating the PDT If a scope is used not known to POM 4.0.0, just

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

Ahh *version* ok... (glad I asked) On Saturday 15 October 2016, Robert Scholte wrote: > Those are the component: "Features dependent on POM Format Changes" > Also have a look at version: "Issues to be reviewed for 4.x" > > > On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:13:19 +0200, Stephen

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

On Saturday 15 October 2016, Christian Schulte wrote: > Am 10/15/16 um 15:20 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > > * does Maven 5 build Maven 2/3 projects? > > No need for this, IMHO. Maven 2 could not build Maven 1 projects. Maven > 3 could build Maven 2 projects but added warnings for

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

Am 10/15/16 um 15:20 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > * does Maven 5 build Maven 2/3 projects? No need for this, IMHO. Maven 2 could not build Maven 1 projects. Maven 3 could build Maven 2 projects but added warnings for various things and some internal model transformations like for the 'reporting'

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

Those are the component: "Features dependent on POM Format Changes" Also have a look at version: "Issues to be reviewed for 4.x" On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:13:19 +0200, Stephen Connolly wrote: I assume that is any issues in the FDPFC component... or is there

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

I assume that is any issues in the FDPFC component... or is there additional issues I need to scan? On 15 October 2016 at 19:37, Robert Scholte wrote: > We should have a look at the MNG jira issues for those marked for Maven 4 > too > > > On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 15:20:40

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

Yep. I'll probably take a stab at that while I try and turn this into an RFC / specification. Is there anything specific you think we could be adding? ("an" because RFC is pronounced Or Eff See, which starts with a vowel) On Saturday 15 October 2016, Robert Scholte

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

We should have a look at the MNG jira issues for those marked for Maven 4 too On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 15:20:40 +0200, Stephen Connolly wrote: So now that I have a spec for the PDTs drafted, I have been thinking of how that could influence Maven 5. Some

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

I'm thinking that we still want a dependency management section, so I'd probably just have that as a dependency tag at the top level or aggregate them in a dependencies tag at the top level... mostly that section though becomes about specifying versions... and really it's only useful from the

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

So building the effective build time model would be: Start with parent, add in matching packaging from parent, in Pom order, add each mix-in (including matching packaging from mix-in before processing subsequent mix-ins), finally apply local pom. To compute effective lifecycle and build plan,

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

Hmmm shower thinking now has me pondering if a custom DSL might be better... something close to human friendly JSON with exceptions for dependency declaration so that they are always specified as g:a:p:v:c:t with the optional p and c being empty, e.g. g:a::v::t On 15 October 2016 at 15:26,

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

Thinking out loud... perhaps something like [] [] ... [] [ ... ] [ ... ] ... [ ... ] [ ... ] [ ... ] ... [ ... ] [ ] [ ] [ [] [ ... ]

Re: Some thoughts on Maven 5

Sent from my iPhone > On 15 Oct 2016, at 14:20, Stephen Connolly > wrote: > > So now that I have a spec for the PDTs drafted, I have been thinking of how > that could influence Maven 5. Some things that came to mind, in no particular > order: > > * scope