RDF sounds like overkill. There is no reason why a comment could not be
a URI but I am not sure that you want to mandate that.
Use Case 1 link to web resource
<dependency comment="http://blog.artifact-software.com/tech/?p=191";>
Use Case 2 lots of in-line deatils
<dependency comment="added to support PDF output">
<groupId>org.apache.xmlgraphics</groupId>
<artifactId>fop</artifactId>
<version comment="Can't use version 2.x see
FOP-3423">1.0</version>
<optional comment="set to true to get text in black on
white">true</optional>
</dependency>
Use case 3 reference to a full explanation in the description
There is also the description tag which could be used to hold more details
<dependency comment="See note 2 in description tag.">
IDE's could show comment attributes on tags in the POM editor or in XML
outline views.
It seems to be a lot more flexible than adding comment tags and probably
less intrusive to existing plug-ins.
Ron
On 20/04/2015 1:26 PM, Robert Scholte wrote:
Would RDF[1][2] be a good option?
[1] http://www.w3.org/RDF/
[2] http://www.w3schools.com/webservices/ws_rdf_intro.asp
Op Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:03:17 +0200 schreef Ron Wheeler
<[email protected]>:
I could live with this being handled by adding an attribute to the
elements mentioned below, if that is easier than adding new elements
to the model.
Ron
On 17/04/2015 12:06 PM, James Green wrote:
Actually I think <comment> ought to be possible within pretty much any
"instruction" within the POM:
A dependency management item
A dependency
A build profile
A build plugin
However the first two are probably the most useful and were my original
desire. Now I can imagine this becoming the start of a more
descriptive set
of declarations to describe the "whys" of a project but this kicks
things
off in a pretty generic way.
And it's not just for the reader of an XML file to avoid going down
a bunch
of upgrades to discover "why" there's a really old pinned library the
project doesn't even directly depend on. It's potentially useful for
interpreters elsewhere: imagine GitHub/IDE decide to provide a POM
viewer
and it shows the comments within this. Might provide explanations as to
security matters and perceived bloat.
On 17 April 2015 at 16:55, Sander Verhagen <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi,
I'm wondering how useful it would be to have "a" (one) comment on a
dependency. Would you rather not have commenting be an attribute of
(yes,
indeed) a dependency, but also more-specifically of an exclusion, a
scope
designation, etc.?
What would be some of the actual comments that you are thinking of
here?
Perhaps this would come to life a bit more with a few good examples.
Sander.
Sander Verhagen
[ [email protected] ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Gregory [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 8:45
To: Maven Users List
Subject: Re: Adding comments to dependencies in POM
+1
Gary
-------- Original message --------
From: James Green <[email protected]>
Date: 04/17/2015 04:58 (GMT-08:00)
To: Maven Users List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Adding comments to dependencies in POM
[ Dragging up a really old topic. ]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5803
Incidentally I would vote against a different namespace as
comments are
likely to be of use to readers of Maven POMs even if they are used
for
visual
purposes.
On 27 August 2014 at 12:03, Robert Scholte <[email protected]>
wrote:
I think it should be solved with a separate namespace, so the model
parsing stays pure without metadata irrelevant for Maven.
And it should already work right now, no need for the pom xsd to
change, since the Maven pom-parser should ignore these kinds of
elements/attributes.
Robert
Op Wed, 27 Aug 2014 12:15:00 +0200 schreef domi <[email protected]>:
+1
I think this would be a good idea, let us know about the issue,
so we
can vote on it.
Domi
On 27.08.2014, at 09:12, James Green <[email protected]>
wrote:
I have in the past wasted hours of effort trying to weed out
dependency
issues where something has been added for reasons unknown. Removal
leads to breakage.
It would be helpful if, inside a POM, it were possible to add a
comment element to a dependency. I realise this is possible as an
XML comment, however having a POM field would let documentation
engines record the comment.
The same could be said for dependencies inside
dependencyManagement.
It would of course have the side effect of auto completion within
IDEs showing authors how to "officially" comment on the reason for
that work.
An idea.
James
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: [email protected]
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
