> 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">
This seems to me to be the most elegant notation from the propoosed to date.
The reason why attributes where not used at all in POM was the Betwixt based parser. I consider this a big disadvantage -- it's kind of like wearing shoes with shoelaces missing... I know that maven-new is using xmlpull, but I don't know how will that affect attribute support in POM. There are some things could certainly used id/ref semantics, for example <organization> sections.
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.
Make sense. I hope we'll be able to limit the number of neccessary dependedncy annotations, but if we can't get rid of them, this syntax seems quite appealing.
R.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
