On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 21:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This sounds interesting.
> 
> Does anyone know how we get a representative or who is the Apache rep on 
> JSR 198?

Join the JCP mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and you can ask to have a
member try to join or you can join as an individual. To make a long
story short no one was interested but knock yourself out.

> --
> dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
> Blog:      http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/
> 
> 
> Jamie McCrindle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 23/07/2003 08:24:19 
> PM:
> 
> > All,
> > 
> > Further to discussions on standardising the POM, i mailed Jose 
> Cronembold,
> > the specification lead for jsr 198 about what the plans are for a
> > standardised project model. 
> > 
> > Jose kindly allowed me to republish his responses on this list. 
> Apologies in
> > advance for any misrepresentation I've done of Maven.
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > My first mail to Jose:
> > 
> > hi,
> > 
> > i've been working with maven (maven.apache.org) some time and recently 
> there
> > has been some discussion on the mailing list about standardizing the 
> project
> > object model. while maven is for the most part a plugin driven build
> > manager, it behaves a great deal like a headless ide. there seem to be
> > parallels between what maven does and what JSR 198 is trying to 
> standardise
> > (at least in respect of non-ui functionality). while we could just wait 
> for
> > the public draft, it would be useful to have some idea of the direction 
> the
> > standard is taking and to what extent maven can conform to it, so here 
> are
> > some questions:
> > 
> > - has maven been considered in regards to jsr 198?
> > - if so, do you have any thoughts to the interoperability of the two 
> (i.e.
> > could maven plugins be wrapped up as headless jsr 198 plugins and vice
> > versa)?
> > - is there any advanced information available to make integration 
> easier?
> > - is a "project model" being standardised in jsr 198 (i.e. where all the
> > sources, dependencies, tests, resources, etc. for a project are).
> > 
> > thanks,
> > jamie mccrindle.
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Jose's Response:
> > 
> > Hi Jamie,
> > 
> > > - has maven been considered in regards to jsr 198
> > > - if so, do you have any thoughts to the interoperability of the two 
> (i.e.
> > > could maven plugins be wrapped up as headless jsr 198 plugins and vice
> > > versa)?
> > 
> > From what I gather Maven seems to be a build management 
> > system that can be customized through plugins. The project object 
> > model seems to control the build process.
> > 
> > Early on, the jsr 198 expert group defined the scope of 
> > the jsr and specifying the build system fell out of the current scope. 
> > We are specifying a project model.
> > 
> > I can see how Maven can be a plugin to Java IDEs, but it is not 
> > clear if it makes sense for Maven's pluging to plug into an IDE 
> > without Maven. 
> > 
> > It may also be difficult for a jsr 198 plugin to easily plug into Maven 
> > since these plugins generally have GUI hooks into an IDE.
> > 
> > > - is there any advanced information available to make integration 
> easier?
> > 
> > Currently, the specification is in its early stages and still evolving.
> > Nothing has 
> > yet been made public.
> > 
> > > - is a "project model" being standardised in jsr 198 (i.e. where all 
> the
> > > sources, dependencies, tests, resources, etc. for a project are).
> > 
> > Yes, jsr 198 is standarizing the in-memory project model but not how 
> > that model is persisted.
> > 
> > 
> > Jose R. Cronembold
> > Oracle Corporation
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > My Reply:
> > 
> > hi Jose,
> > 
> > thanks for the reply. do you mind if i forward this to the maven list, 
> as
> > i'm sure there are mavenites who would find this discussion useful?
> > 
> > maven gets much of it's power from internally standardising it's project
> > model, hence our discussion on standardising it. since jsr 198 already
> > proposes to do this (runtime only), it would be interesting to explore
> > whether this project model can be adapted to jsr 198 and what level of
> > integration we could expect (there was talk of non-ui jsr 198 plugins 
> that
> > can run under both Swing and SWT). it may make more sense just to expose
> > maven as a whole as a plugin to an ide but since they do share project
> > models there may be scope for deeper integration.
> > 
> > any idea when we'll see a public draft? is the final version still on 
> track
> > for the end of 2003?
> > 
> > thanks,
> > jamie.
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > His response:
> > 
> > Hi Jamie,
> > 
> > > thanks for the reply. do you mind if i forward this to the maven list, 
> as
> > > i'm sure there are mavenites who would find this discussion useful?
> > 
> > No problem.
> > 
> > > maven gets much of it's power from internally standardising it's 
> project
> > > model, hence our discussion on standardising it. since jsr 198 already
> > > proposes to do this (runtime only), it would be interesting to explore
> > > whether this project model can be adapted to jsr 198 and what level of
> > > integration we could expect (there was talk of non-ui jsr 198 plugins 
> that
> > > can run under both Swing and SWT). it may make more sense just to 
> expose
> > > maven as a whole as a plugin to an ide but since they do share project
> > > models there may be scope for deeper integration.
> > 
> > We have not yet finalized the project model specification. The areas 
> that 
> > we will be covering include:
> > 
> >    - Source Path
> >    - Class Path
> >    - Output Directory (where .class files are generated).
> >    - How plugin specific data is held by a project (this data are 
> generally
> >       project specific settings associated with a plugin and that end 
> users 
> >       can change through a project settings dialog).
> > 
> > > any idea when we'll see a public draft? is the final version still on
> > track
> > > for the end of 2003?
> > 
> > Probably by the begining of next year.
> > 
> > Jose R. Cronembold
> > Oracle Corporation
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > My last reply:
> > 
> > hi Jose,
> > 
> > > We have not yet finalized the project model specification. 
> > > The areas that 
> > > we will be covering include:
> > > 
> > >    - Source Path
> > >    - Class Path
> > >    - Output Directory (where .class files are generated).
> > >    - How plugin specific data is held by a project (this data 
> > > are generally
> > >       project specific settings associated with a plugin and 
> > > that end users 
> > >       can change through a project settings dialog).
> > > 
> > 
> > Are the dependencies going to be modelled at all (jars, zips, other 
> projects
> > etc?)
> > 
> > regards,
> > jamie.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > 
> > This e-mail message (including any attachment) is intended only for 
> > the personal 
> > use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is confidential and 
> may be 
> > legally privileged.  If you are not an intended recipient, you may 
> > not review, copy or 
> > distribute this message. If you have received this communication in 
> > error, please notify 
> > us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
> > 
> > Any views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author 
> only. 
> > Furthermore, this message (including any attachment) does not create
> > any legally 
> > binding rights or obligations whatsoever, which may only be created 
> > by the exchange 
> > of hard copy documents signed by a duly authorised representative 
> ofHutchison 
> > 3G UK Limited.
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
-- 
jvz.

Jason van Zyl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://tambora.zenplex.org

In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
  
  -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to