Hi Michal,
I don't have a lot to add to the comments that others have already made.
But, here goes...
When parsing XML, I prefer to see separate elements rather than
comma-separated or multi-line text within a single element. Despite the
verbosity increase, I therefore prefer:
<kind>kind1</kind>
<kind>kind2</kind>
or
<kind id="kind1" />
<kind id="kind2" />
over
<kind>kind1,kind2</kind>
This also means that I don't care for property-style definitions declared as
the inline text of an XML element as you propose. But, I think that the
<properties> issue needs to be rethought as others have already suggested.
Also, I personally don't like the name "kind", it is very generic and
conveys no meaning. If we think of a dependency belonging to 1-n sets, then
I start to think of the CSS class or psuedo-class mechanisms. I am not sure
why we are not taking advantage of that type of syntax in parsing the POM,
but I could imagine something like:
<dependency class="kind1 kind2">
Now to dependency properties. As others have said, kinds/classes/etc.
provide a perfect substitute for binary properties. The only issue is the
definition of non-binary properties. In XML, I prefer to stay with a syntax
that looks something like:
<property name="theProperty">theValue</property>
If properties must be defined on a per kind/class basis, then nest the
property element under a kind element:
<dependency>
<property name="aProperty">theValueForAllKinds</property>
<kind id="kind1">
<property name="aKind1Property">theValueForKind1</property>
</kind>
</dependency>
In summary, I would stick to standard XML-style syntax rather than trying to
embed other textual structures inside of XML elements.
--------------------------------------
David Zeleznik
ILOG - Changing the rules of business
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ilog.com
--------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
