You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@maven.apache.org by Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org> on 2005/10/04 01:56:04 UTC
Re: Maven xsd
May I assume silent consent and ask somebody with core privs to remove
those namespace requirements?
[Just being pushy, I'd like to get some feedback]
-Lukas
Lukas Theussl wrote:
>
> I am currently re-writing the validation routines for the pom:validate
> and xdoc:validate goals and I'd like to ask a question about the current
> maven-project-3.xsd used by m11b2. According to this schema, every
> project.xml should have a namespace declaration in the <project> element:
>
> <project xmlns="http://maven.apache.org/POM/3.0.0">
>
> in order to be valid. We would have to rewrite a lot of pugin poms in
> order to comply with this schema and I didn't find any docs on that, so
> I'm wondering if this is intentional. It also means that poms that were
> valid in m1.0 are not anymore in m1.1. Are there any objections to
> removing this namespace requirement from the xsd?
>
> Cheers,
> Lukas
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven xsd
Posted by Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org>.
Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
> After thinking about it I'm not sure it's a good idea to validate the POM with a schema :-(
I don't really agree with you here. It's true that the plugin will not
help you if your pom is actually not well formed or not parsable, Maven
core will fail before the plugin is able to tell you what's wrong. [I
have actually committed some documentation updates about this only this
morning, see also MAVEN-1707].
pom:validate is not supposed to tell you whether your pom is valid xml,
but rather whether it's a valid pom. Any sensible project should at
least define name, groupId, etc, in order to produce meaningful results.
The pom:validate goal should verify that such minimum requirements are
met, so that a user can expect the correct behavior of basic maven features.
-Lukas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven xsd
Posted by Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org>.
Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
>
> We should maintain 2 schemas :-(
> Or can we generate the maven-pom-extend from maven-pom-strict.
I know, it sounds like overkill. But the two schemas are basically
identical, except that in strict we put some minOccurs=1 for all
elements that are required. I think it should even be possible to derive
a schema file from another one on the fly, by just specifying the
attributes that have to be changed. We wouldn't have to store two
quasi-identical files then. I'll think about it.
-Lukas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
RE: Maven xsd
Posted by Arnaud HERITIER <ah...@gmail.com>.
>
>
> Remark: the current pom:validate goal works to some extent
> even for poms that extend others. Having a valid
> a/project.xml and a b/project.xml with only
> <extend>../a/project.xml</extend> in it, validates b. Making
> an invalid change to a's pom then makes the validation on b
> fail as well.
Good feature. I didn't used it.
>
> However, it doesn't work if I set some minOccurs in the
> schema file to 1, in that case the validation of b will fail
> even if the corresponding element is present in a.
>
>
> What about the following suggestion: we introduce two
> schemas, maven-pom-strict and maven-pom-extend. Every
> stand-alone pom has to comply with pom-strict and every pom
> that extends another one has to extend at least one strictly
> valid pom.
>
> [This doesn't eliminate some exotic setup's where you have a
> chain of poms that are each invalid by themselves, but when
> merged together make up a valid one. I don't know if this is
> a frequent case.]
We should maintain 2 schemas :-(
Or can we generate the maven-pom-extend from maven-pom-strict.
I'm not sure if it's very useful.....
Arnaud
>
>
> -Lukas
>
>
> Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
> > The only solution is to do what is already done actually...
> >
> > 1) We can't have a schema more restrictive because each
> element is optional if you use the POM's inheritence.
> > 2) We can't easily merged project.xml files because there
> are several
> > rules : some elements replace the ones in the parent and
> some others are in addition to them (and it will as
> complicated as the 3rd proposal).
> > 3) We can't test the rewritten POM because it will not be
> easy to explain to the user where the problem is ...
> >
> > The real question we should ask to ourselves it's why we
> need a schema for the POM ?
> > After thinking about it I'm not sure it's a good idea to
> validate the
> > POM with a schema :-( The schema (in my opinion) should be used
> > exclusively to help users to create the project.xml file
> (using an xml editor which propose it if they don't already
> use a tool like mevenide).
> > The validation of the POM should be done by the core itself (with a
> > validate method in the Project object -even if I don't know what we
> > can test) and an explicit message should be return if
> there's a problem. ==> It should be also the model which log
> a message if a plugin tries to use an element in the POM
> which is not defined (The test shouldn't be done in the plugin) ....
> >
> > But I think that all these ideas aren't possible to
> implement to keep
> > the compability between maven 10 and maven 1.1 :-( Thus I
> think we must keep things as more simple as possible.
> >
> > WDYT ?
> >
> > Arnaud
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org For
> additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven xsd
Posted by Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org>.
Remark: the current pom:validate goal works to some extent even for poms
that extend others. Having a valid a/project.xml and a b/project.xml
with only <extend>../a/project.xml</extend> in it, validates b. Making
an invalid change to a's pom then makes the validation on b fail as well.
However, it doesn't work if I set some minOccurs in the schema file to
1, in that case the validation of b will fail even if the corresponding
element is present in a.
What about the following suggestion: we introduce two schemas,
maven-pom-strict and maven-pom-extend. Every stand-alone pom has to
comply with pom-strict and every pom that extends another one has to
extend at least one strictly valid pom.
[This doesn't eliminate some exotic setup's where you have a chain of
poms that are each invalid by themselves, but when merged together make
up a valid one. I don't know if this is a frequent case.]
-Lukas
Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
> The only solution is to do what is already done actually...
>
> 1) We can't have a schema more restrictive because each element is optional if you use the POM's inheritence.
> 2) We can't easily merged project.xml files because there are several rules : some elements replace the ones in the parent and some
> others are in addition to them (and it will as complicated as the 3rd proposal).
> 3) We can't test the rewritten POM because it will not be easy to explain to the user where the problem is ...
>
> The real question we should ask to ourselves it's why we need a schema for the POM ?
> After thinking about it I'm not sure it's a good idea to validate the POM with a schema :-(
> The schema (in my opinion) should be used exclusively to help users to create the project.xml file (using an xml editor which
> propose it if they don't already use a tool like mevenide).
> The validation of the POM should be done by the core itself (with a validate method in the Project object -even if I don't know what
> we can test) and an explicit message should be return if there's a problem. ==> It should be also the model which log a message if a
> plugin tries to use an element in the POM which is not defined (The test shouldn't be done in the plugin) ....
>
> But I think that all these ideas aren't possible to implement to keep the compability between maven 10 and maven 1.1 :-(
> Thus I think we must keep things as more simple as possible.
>
> WDYT ?
>
> Arnaud
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
RE: Maven xsd
Posted by Arnaud HERITIER <ah...@gmail.com>.
The only solution is to do what is already done actually...
1) We can't have a schema more restrictive because each element is optional if you use the POM's inheritence.
2) We can't easily merged project.xml files because there are several rules : some elements replace the ones in the parent and some
others are in addition to them (and it will as complicated as the 3rd proposal).
3) We can't test the rewritten POM because it will not be easy to explain to the user where the problem is ...
The real question we should ask to ourselves it's why we need a schema for the POM ?
After thinking about it I'm not sure it's a good idea to validate the POM with a schema :-(
The schema (in my opinion) should be used exclusively to help users to create the project.xml file (using an xml editor which
propose it if they don't already use a tool like mevenide).
The validation of the POM should be done by the core itself (with a validate method in the Project object -even if I don't know what
we can test) and an explicit message should be return if there's a problem. ==> It should be also the model which log a message if a
plugin tries to use an element in the POM which is not defined (The test shouldn't be done in the plugin) ....
But I think that all these ideas aren't possible to implement to keep the compability between maven 10 and maven 1.1 :-(
Thus I think we must keep things as more simple as possible.
WDYT ?
Arnaud
>
> The real POM has to be checked against a schema, that's sure.
> If we want to check also the generated model I'm ok with
> that, but as a new feature (sanitity test).
>
> On 10/6/05, Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I am a bit sceptical about that. I don't know in detail how the
> > PomRewriter class works but it constructs a new pom from a
> maven model.
> > That means it gets transformed on the way, I did a few tests and
> > noticed that attributes get stripped, the order of elements
> changed, ...?
> >
> > It would be safer to have a simple node-by-node merge of
> xml files, I
> > don't know if there exists a convenient tool for this.
> >
> >
> > But then, with a merged pom it would be hard to track
> errors since we
> > don't know where a particular error came from...
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Lukas
> >
> >
> >
> > Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
> > > Actually, it's the real POM which is tested, thus it's
> not possible to add a minimum set of elements.
> > > But I just finished to commit a new tag in the artifact
> plugin which
> > > allow to generate an aggregated pom which resolves
> inheritence, jelly variables, versions override, and we could
> use it to test the POM.
> > >
> > > WDYT ?
> > >
> > > Arnaud
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org For
> > additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org For
> additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven xsd
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
The real POM has to be checked against a schema, that's sure. If we
want to check also the generated model I'm ok with that, but as a new
feature (sanitity test).
On 10/6/05, Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I am a bit sceptical about that. I don't know in detail how the
> PomRewriter class works but it constructs a new pom from a maven model.
> That means it gets transformed on the way, I did a few tests and noticed
> that attributes get stripped, the order of elements changed, ...?
>
> It would be safer to have a simple node-by-node merge of xml files, I
> don't know if there exists a convenient tool for this.
>
>
> But then, with a merged pom it would be hard to track errors since we
> don't know where a particular error came from...
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Lukas
>
>
>
> Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
> > Actually, it's the real POM which is tested, thus it's not possible to add a minimum set of elements.
> > But I just finished to commit a new tag in the artifact plugin which allow to generate an aggregated pom which resolves inheritence,
> > jelly variables, versions override, and we could use it to test the POM.
> >
> > WDYT ?
> >
> > Arnaud
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven xsd
Posted by Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org>.
I am a bit sceptical about that. I don't know in detail how the
PomRewriter class works but it constructs a new pom from a maven model.
That means it gets transformed on the way, I did a few tests and noticed
that attributes get stripped, the order of elements changed, ...?
It would be safer to have a simple node-by-node merge of xml files, I
don't know if there exists a convenient tool for this.
But then, with a merged pom it would be hard to track errors since we
don't know where a particular error came from...
Any thoughts?
Lukas
Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
> Actually, it's the real POM which is tested, thus it's not possible to add a minimum set of elements.
> But I just finished to commit a new tag in the artifact plugin which allow to generate an aggregated pom which resolves inheritence,
> jelly variables, versions override, and we could use it to test the POM.
>
> WDYT ?
>
> Arnaud
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
RE: Maven xsd
Posted by Arnaud HERITIER <ah...@gmail.com>.
Actually, it's the real POM which is tested, thus it's not possible to add a minimum set of elements.
But I just finished to commit a new tag in the artifact plugin which allow to generate an aggregated pom which resolves inheritence,
jelly variables, versions override, and we could use it to test the POM.
WDYT ?
Arnaud
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : carlossg@gmail.com [mailto:carlossg@gmail.com] De la
> part de Carlos Sanchez
> Envoyé : mercredi 5 octobre 2005 00:31
> À : Maven Developers List
> Objet : Re: Maven xsd
>
> I've opened an issue about POM not requiring groupId.
> My question is: the pom validates against schema before
> checking extension or is a temp pom aggregating the parent
> pom data the one that is checked against the schema?
>
> On 10/4/05, Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Tony for your remarks!
> >
> > So what you are saying is that we can drop the namespace
> requirement
> > if we make sure to check the pom version instead? Would
> something like
> > the following do:
> >
> > <xs:element name="pomVersion">
> > <xs:simpleType>
> > <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
> > <xs:enumeration value="3"/>
> > </xs:restriction>
> > </xs:simpleType>
> > </xs:element>
> >
> >
> >
> > Another general question: I noticed that maven-project.xsd
> defines a
> > minOccurs="0" attribute for _all_ elements except the root
> (project).
> > That means that a completely empty pom is perfectly valid? I would
> > have thought that there should be a minimum set of elements
> that make
> > up a valid pom. It would also facilitate the tracking of
> some obscure
> > error messages that we sometimes get when a plugin tries to
> access an
> > inexistent pom element.
> >
> > Thanks again,
> > -Lukas
> >
> >
> >
> > Anthony B. Coates wrote:
> > > Since POM instances identify their POM version, there is
> a case that
> > > the namespace does not need to change with every new POM version.
> > > However, it sounds to me like there is a problem with the way
> > > "pom:validate" is conceived.
> > >
> > > If you are validate a POM instance for an older version
> of the POM,
> > > you should be using the older version of the POM Schema. I
> > > expect/assume/hope that Maven takes note of the POM
> version when it
> > > reads a POM instance, and doesn't just assume that any
> POM instance
> > > can be assumed to be compatible with the latest POM
> version. The
> > > same approach should apply to "pom:validate".
> > >
> > > If you do remove the namespace, I hope that each Schema
> version will
> > > strictly check the value of the POM version, so that you
> still get a
> > > sanity check that you are using the right Schema version for the
> > > right POM version.
> > >
> > > Cheers, Tony.
> > >
> > > On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:41:00 +0100, Lukas Theussl
> > > <lt...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>> I've poms without namespace which are working under 1.1b2, why
> > >>> are you saying it's required?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Sure they work but they don't validate. The problem that I have
> > >> currently is that running 'pom:validate' on a pom
> without namespace
> > >> declaration seems to hang the msv verifier. This is
> probably a bug
> > >> in msv, but I find it quite inconvenient anyway to enforce this
> > >> namespace declaration.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Lukas
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org For
> > >> additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org For
> > additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org For
> additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven xsd
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
I've opened an issue about POM not requiring groupId.
My question is: the pom validates against schema before checking
extension or is a temp pom aggregating the parent pom data the one
that is checked against the schema?
On 10/4/05, Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks Tony for your remarks!
>
> So what you are saying is that we can drop the namespace requirement if
> we make sure to check the pom version instead? Would something like the
> following do:
>
> <xs:element name="pomVersion">
> <xs:simpleType>
> <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
> <xs:enumeration value="3"/>
> </xs:restriction>
> </xs:simpleType>
> </xs:element>
>
>
>
> Another general question: I noticed that maven-project.xsd defines a
> minOccurs="0" attribute for _all_ elements except the root (project).
> That means that a completely empty pom is perfectly valid? I would have
> thought that there should be a minimum set of elements that make up a
> valid pom. It would also facilitate the tracking of some obscure error
> messages that we sometimes get when a plugin tries to access an
> inexistent pom element.
>
> Thanks again,
> -Lukas
>
>
>
> Anthony B. Coates wrote:
> > Since POM instances identify their POM version, there is a case that
> > the namespace does not need to change with every new POM version.
> > However, it sounds to me like there is a problem with the way
> > "pom:validate" is conceived.
> >
> > If you are validate a POM instance for an older version of the POM, you
> > should be using the older version of the POM Schema. I
> > expect/assume/hope that Maven takes note of the POM version when it
> > reads a POM instance, and doesn't just assume that any POM instance can
> > be assumed to be compatible with the latest POM version. The same
> > approach should apply to "pom:validate".
> >
> > If you do remove the namespace, I hope that each Schema version will
> > strictly check the value of the POM version, so that you still get a
> > sanity check that you are using the right Schema version for the right
> > POM version.
> >
> > Cheers, Tony.
> >
> > On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:41:00 +0100, Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>> I've poms without namespace which are working under 1.1b2, why are you
> >>> saying it's required?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Sure they work but they don't validate. The problem that I have
> >> currently is that running 'pom:validate' on a pom without namespace
> >> declaration seems to hang the msv verifier. This is probably a bug in
> >> msv, but I find it quite inconvenient anyway to enforce this
> >> namespace declaration.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Lukas
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven xsd
Posted by Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org>.
Thanks Tony for your remarks!
So what you are saying is that we can drop the namespace requirement if
we make sure to check the pom version instead? Would something like the
following do:
<xs:element name="pomVersion">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:string">
<xs:enumeration value="3"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:element>
Another general question: I noticed that maven-project.xsd defines a
minOccurs="0" attribute for _all_ elements except the root (project).
That means that a completely empty pom is perfectly valid? I would have
thought that there should be a minimum set of elements that make up a
valid pom. It would also facilitate the tracking of some obscure error
messages that we sometimes get when a plugin tries to access an
inexistent pom element.
Thanks again,
-Lukas
Anthony B. Coates wrote:
> Since POM instances identify their POM version, there is a case that
> the namespace does not need to change with every new POM version.
> However, it sounds to me like there is a problem with the way
> "pom:validate" is conceived.
>
> If you are validate a POM instance for an older version of the POM, you
> should be using the older version of the POM Schema. I
> expect/assume/hope that Maven takes note of the POM version when it
> reads a POM instance, and doesn't just assume that any POM instance can
> be assumed to be compatible with the latest POM version. The same
> approach should apply to "pom:validate".
>
> If you do remove the namespace, I hope that each Schema version will
> strictly check the value of the POM version, so that you still get a
> sanity check that you are using the right Schema version for the right
> POM version.
>
> Cheers, Tony.
>
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:41:00 +0100, Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I've poms without namespace which are working under 1.1b2, why are you
>>> saying it's required?
>>>
>>
>> Sure they work but they don't validate. The problem that I have
>> currently is that running 'pom:validate' on a pom without namespace
>> declaration seems to hang the msv verifier. This is probably a bug in
>> msv, but I find it quite inconvenient anyway to enforce this
>> namespace declaration.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Lukas
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven xsd
Posted by "Anthony B. Coates" <ab...@idmm.co.uk>.
Since POM instances identify their POM version, there is a case that the
namespace does not need to change with every new POM version. However, it
sounds to me like there is a problem with the way "pom:validate" is
conceived.
If you are validate a POM instance for an older version of the POM, you
should be using the older version of the POM Schema. I expect/assume/hope
that Maven takes note of the POM version when it reads a POM instance, and
doesn't just assume that any POM instance can be assumed to be compatible
with the latest POM version. The same approach should apply to
"pom:validate".
If you do remove the namespace, I hope that each Schema version will
strictly check the value of the POM version, so that you still get a
sanity check that you are using the right Schema version for the right POM
version.
Cheers, Tony.
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:41:00 +0100, Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org>
wrote:
>
>
> Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I've poms without namespace which are working under 1.1b2, why are you
>> saying it's required?
>>
>
> Sure they work but they don't validate. The problem that I have
> currently is that running 'pom:validate' on a pom without namespace
> declaration seems to hang the msv verifier. This is probably a bug in
> msv, but I find it quite inconvenient anyway to enforce this namespace
> declaration.
>
> Cheers,
> Lukas
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
--
Anthony B. Coates, Director
Information Design, Messaging and Management
mailto:abcoates@idmm.co.uk
Mobile/Cell: +44 (79) 0543 9026
--
MDDL Editor (Market Data Definition Language)
http://www.mddl.org/
FpML AWG Member (Financial Products Markup Language)
http://www.fpml.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven xsd
Posted by Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org>.
Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've poms without namespace which are working under 1.1b2, why are you
> saying it's required?
>
Sure they work but they don't validate. The problem that I have
currently is that running 'pom:validate' on a pom without namespace
declaration seems to hang the msv verifier. This is probably a bug in
msv, but I find it quite inconvenient anyway to enforce this namespace
declaration.
Cheers,
Lukas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Maven xsd
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi,
I've poms without namespace which are working under 1.1b2, why are you
saying it's required?
Regards
On 10/3/05, Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> May I assume silent consent and ask somebody with core privs to remove
> those namespace requirements?
>
> [Just being pushy, I'd like to get some feedback]
>
> -Lukas
>
>
>
> Lukas Theussl wrote:
> >
> > I am currently re-writing the validation routines for the pom:validate
> > and xdoc:validate goals and I'd like to ask a question about the current
> > maven-project-3.xsd used by m11b2. According to this schema, every
> > project.xml should have a namespace declaration in the <project> element:
> >
> > <project xmlns="http://maven.apache.org/POM/3.0.0">
> >
> > in order to be valid. We would have to rewrite a lot of pugin poms in
> > order to comply with this schema and I didn't find any docs on that, so
> > I'm wondering if this is intentional. It also means that poms that were
> > valid in m1.0 are not anymore in m1.1. Are there any objections to
> > removing this namespace requirement from the xsd?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Lukas
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
RE: Maven xsd
Posted by Arnaud HERITIER <ah...@gmail.com>.
I have no idea.
Brett, Jason ? Others ?
Arnaud
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Lukas Theussl [mailto:ltheussl@apache.org]
> Envoyé : mardi 4 octobre 2005 01:56
> À : Maven Developers List
> Objet : Re: Maven xsd
>
>
> May I assume silent consent and ask somebody with core privs
> to remove those namespace requirements?
>
> [Just being pushy, I'd like to get some feedback]
>
> -Lukas
>
>
>
> Lukas Theussl wrote:
> >
> > I am currently re-writing the validation routines for the
> pom:validate
> > and xdoc:validate goals and I'd like to ask a question about the
> > current maven-project-3.xsd used by m11b2. According to
> this schema,
> > every project.xml should have a namespace declaration in
> the <project> element:
> >
> > <project xmlns="http://maven.apache.org/POM/3.0.0">
> >
> > in order to be valid. We would have to rewrite a lot of
> pugin poms in
> > order to comply with this schema and I didn't find any docs
> on that,
> > so I'm wondering if this is intentional. It also means that
> poms that
> > were valid in m1.0 are not anymore in m1.1. Are there any
> objections
> > to removing this namespace requirement from the xsd?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Lukas
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org For
> > additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org For
> additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org