That is a good example of the tradeoffs as well. In several places the pom.rb is forced to generate a pom.xml to satisfy other tooling, as mentioned here: https://github.com/jruby/jruby/blob/047188902e8d1d307d1f9e51d1bdc60ec1d09bc9/BUILDING.md#hacking-the-build-system
On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 4:49 PM Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> wrote: > Howdy, > > I am aware for example the JRuby uses polyglot: > https://github.com/jruby/jruby > > AFAIK, not all languages are "same done" or maybe I may risk "same > quality", for example JRuby/pom.rb is nicely maintained, unsure for other > ones... > > Thanks > T > > > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 11:35 PM Greg Chabala <greg.chab...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I have looked into maven-polyglot before, and come to the conclusion that > > it is a proof of concept, and something that few if any people actually > > use, because: > > > > 1. Professional programmers are not actually offended by using XML in > > the POM, only novices would complain about such a thing. > > 2. All tooling will expect a pom.xml, e.g. IDEs, CI tools, linters, > etc. > > If any of those things are able to handle a polyglot POM in non-XML, > > that's > > a tiny miracle. > > 3. maven-polyglot gets mentioned when people complain about Maven > using > > XML, as 'look, you don't have to, you can use whatever you want' but > no > > one > > actually does. > > 4. The first suspect when something doesn't work right in your build > > will always be maven-polyglot, because no one uses it, so it's > > potentially not compatible with every plugin. Then you get to convert > > back > > to pom.xml and try again. So better to skip the effort and stay with > > XML in > > the first place. > > >
