On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 19:30, Jason Dillon wrote: > Hello, the website says that "project.xml form, is now processed as a > Jelly script " > (http://maven.apache.org/reference/user-guide.html#POM%20Interpolation > ) but it does not appear to be having like it is a jelly script at all.
Yes, I removed the Jelly script stuff a while ago but the interpolation remains. I decided it was probably a very bad idea to bind the descriptor to Jelly. I still feel that. > Is the user guide not valid? Is there a special property to enable > this? I have looked over the source and it does not appear that any > jelly fluff is done to the project.xml file. > > IMO I think that it would be very beneficial if it was a jelly script > so that Maven in general is more flexible. I understand not wanting to > put much logic into the project.xml, but it would make management of > large projects much easier. I think the use cases would have to surface before making the project.xml file a jelly script. I honestly think I jumped the gun on that one. > Specifically I was looking for a way to define common dependencies for > a large project (Apache Geronimo) so I could better manage version > numbers of the dependencies. Dependencies are inherited in an aggregate fashion. So if you have common dependencies then you can state them in a parent project. In much the same way the Jelly tag builds are setup. > I did not wish to put all of the depends > into a parent project as that would force each child project to have > additional dependencies on its classpath which might not be a good > thing, nor do I want each and every module to try to download > SNAPSHOTS, especially if they do not even need that depend. Sorry, don't understand that one. You want a common set of dependencies but don't want them in the classpath? What do you want to use those common dependencies for? > So I thought about using properties like > 'dependency.commons-logger.version=1.0.3' and then specify the property > as the content for <version/>, which works fine if the property is > defined in the child modules project.properties, or if the property is > in the parent and the child is always invoked through the reactor. > This is not the case with Geronimo, so this method fails. Have you looked at the jar overrided feature which allows you to set a standard version of an artifact? > James and I were chatting about this a tad... I was under the > impression that I could use jelly in project.xml (drawn conclusion from > web page and some bad tests I made). He suggested using <x:parse > xml="../../dependencies.xml"/> and then selecting out dependencies by > name and then copying them into the project.xml. I think this would be > very useful and shows where project.xml as a jelly script would be > desirable. > > I think this is a good idea, but wanted to hear what you guys have to > say. I think it would be generally undesirable. I just don't want to see Jelly in the project XML directly. But I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of optional filtering mechanism so you could use Jelly or anything else you wanted to. > Also I was talking to James about the problem of versioning > dependencies in general and how it would make sense if Maven supported > more symbolic names (similar to SNAPSHOT) but which could point to the > latest stable release. The idea of RELEASE has been discussed, just not implemented. You can put it in JIRA so we can track it. > It probably makes sense to provide some sort of > version alias mechanism, as it becomes problematic to effectively > maintain version numbers in a large project. Take Maven for example, > there are a few plugins which use different yet compatible versions of > dependencies, which only results in additional overhead. If all > plugins are compatible with a specific version, then it would make > sense for them to all use that version. Within Maven it's more the classloader isolation problem. The versions should be allowed to vary. But in the case of Geronimo if you were attempting to use the same version overall you can use the jar override feature. > Anyways I have been up for way too long, it was light when I woke up > and it is light again, so I am gonna crash now. > > Cheers, > > --jason -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
