I agree that RDF might be a little on the heavy side. You might put some thought, though, into how you imagine IDEs to render this. Should they be able to render whatever a URL points to -- instead of just showing the URL? If so, should they be able to distinguish a URL from an actual comment description (that may or may not include a URL)? How should it do that then, some URLs we still might want to show as a URL? Et cetera?
Sander Verhagen [ [email protected] ] NOTICE: my e-mail address has changed. You may still e-mail me at [email protected] but you will see me using [email protected] from now on. Feel free to update your address book. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Wheeler [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 10:44 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Adding comments to dependencies in POM > > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
