You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@maven.apache.org by Jamie McCrindle <Ja...@three.co.uk> on 2003/07/23 12:24:19 UTC
the POM and JSR 198
All,
Further to discussions on standardising the POM, i mailed Jose Cronembold,
the specification lead for jsr 198 about what the plans are for a
standardised project model.
Jose kindly allowed me to republish his responses on this list. Apologies in
advance for any misrepresentation I've done of Maven.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
My first mail to Jose:
hi,
i've been working with maven (maven.apache.org) some time and recently there
has been some discussion on the mailing list about standardizing the project
object model. while maven is for the most part a plugin driven build
manager, it behaves a great deal like a headless ide. there seem to be
parallels between what maven does and what JSR 198 is trying to standardise
(at least in respect of non-ui functionality). while we could just wait for
the public draft, it would be useful to have some idea of the direction the
standard is taking and to what extent maven can conform to it, so here are
some questions:
- has maven been considered in regards to jsr 198?
- if so, do you have any thoughts to the interoperability of the two (i.e.
could maven plugins be wrapped up as headless jsr 198 plugins and vice
versa)?
- is there any advanced information available to make integration easier?
- is a "project model" being standardised in jsr 198 (i.e. where all the
sources, dependencies, tests, resources, etc. for a project are).
thanks,
jamie mccrindle.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose's Response:
Hi Jamie,
> - has maven been considered in regards to jsr 198
> - if so, do you have any thoughts to the interoperability of the two (i.e.
> could maven plugins be wrapped up as headless jsr 198 plugins and vice
> versa)?
>From what I gather Maven seems to be a build management
system that can be customized through plugins. The project object
model seems to control the build process.
Early on, the jsr 198 expert group defined the scope of
the jsr and specifying the build system fell out of the current scope.
We are specifying a project model.
I can see how Maven can be a plugin to Java IDEs, but it is not
clear if it makes sense for Maven's pluging to plug into an IDE
without Maven.
It may also be difficult for a jsr 198 plugin to easily plug into Maven
since these plugins generally have GUI hooks into an IDE.
> - is there any advanced information available to make integration easier?
Currently, the specification is in its early stages and still evolving.
Nothing has
yet been made public.
> - is a "project model" being standardised in jsr 198 (i.e. where all the
> sources, dependencies, tests, resources, etc. for a project are).
Yes, jsr 198 is standarizing the in-memory project model but not how
that model is persisted.
Jose R. Cronembold
Oracle Corporation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
My Reply:
hi Jose,
thanks for the reply. do you mind if i forward this to the maven list, as
i'm sure there are mavenites who would find this discussion useful?
maven gets much of it's power from internally standardising it's project
model, hence our discussion on standardising it. since jsr 198 already
proposes to do this (runtime only), it would be interesting to explore
whether this project model can be adapted to jsr 198 and what level of
integration we could expect (there was talk of non-ui jsr 198 plugins that
can run under both Swing and SWT). it may make more sense just to expose
maven as a whole as a plugin to an ide but since they do share project
models there may be scope for deeper integration.
any idea when we'll see a public draft? is the final version still on track
for the end of 2003?
thanks,
jamie.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
His response:
Hi Jamie,
> thanks for the reply. do you mind if i forward this to the maven list, as
> i'm sure there are mavenites who would find this discussion useful?
No problem.
> maven gets much of it's power from internally standardising it's project
> model, hence our discussion on standardising it. since jsr 198 already
> proposes to do this (runtime only), it would be interesting to explore
> whether this project model can be adapted to jsr 198 and what level of
> integration we could expect (there was talk of non-ui jsr 198 plugins that
> can run under both Swing and SWT). it may make more sense just to expose
> maven as a whole as a plugin to an ide but since they do share project
> models there may be scope for deeper integration.
We have not yet finalized the project model specification. The areas that
we will be covering include:
- Source Path
- Class Path
- Output Directory (where .class files are generated).
- How plugin specific data is held by a project (this data are generally
project specific settings associated with a plugin and that end users
can change through a project settings dialog).
> any idea when we'll see a public draft? is the final version still on
track
> for the end of 2003?
Probably by the begining of next year.
Jose R. Cronembold
Oracle Corporation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
My last reply:
hi Jose,
> We have not yet finalized the project model specification.
> The areas that
> we will be covering include:
>
> - Source Path
> - Class Path
> - Output Directory (where .class files are generated).
> - How plugin specific data is held by a project (this data
> are generally
> project specific settings associated with a plugin and
> that end users
> can change through a project settings dialog).
>
Are the dependencies going to be modelled at all (jars, zips, other projects
etc?)
regards,
jamie.
________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail message (including any attachment) is intended only for the personal
use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is confidential and may be
legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or
distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
Any views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author only.
Furthermore, this message (including any attachment) does not create any legally
binding rights or obligations whatsoever, which may only be created by the exchange
of hard copy documents signed by a duly authorised representative of Hutchison
3G UK Limited.
________________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: the POM and JSR 198
Posted by Paul Libbrecht <pa...@activemath.org>.
Jason,
I think you're going way too fast here:
-> JCP things are happening isolated quite often, and I do think that in
this case not Sun but Oracle was at work for that...
-> I think anyone involved with Maven should be happy that such a JSR is
found and that Maven is mentionned...
-> commercial powers often forget to look on the open-source side,
that's nothing new, really.
Paul
Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Then maybe you should consider actually consulting the actual developers
> of Maven before going off into conversations with others about Maven.
> There are many of us here who have direct dealings with Sun or the JCP,
> we don't need anyone to talk to Sun on our behalf thank you very much.
> As well if they were actually interested someone from the JSR would have
> contacted us. I speak with Tom Kincaid from Sun a couple times a month
> and it's not like people inside Sun don't know what Maven is though I'm
> sure they don't know what it does.
>
> As well, the attempt by Sun to stick their fingers in everything is like
> the behaviour of a greedy child. Soon there will be a JSR to define
> which hand Java developers should wipe their ass with, it's just
> ridiculous. I simply don't think they will come up with anything that's
> a revelation to anyone here.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: the POM and JSR 198
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com>.
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 06:24, Jamie McCrindle wrote:
> All,
>
> Further to discussions on standardising the POM, i mailed Jose Cronembold,
> the specification lead for jsr 198 about what the plans are for a
> standardised project model.
>
> Jose kindly allowed me to republish his responses on this list. Apologies in
> advance for any misrepresentation I've done of Maven.
>
Then maybe you should consider actually consulting the actual developers
of Maven before going off into conversations with others about Maven.
There are many of us here who have direct dealings with Sun or the JCP,
we don't need anyone to talk to Sun on our behalf thank you very much.
As well if they were actually interested someone from the JSR would have
contacted us. I speak with Tom Kincaid from Sun a couple times a month
and it's not like people inside Sun don't know what Maven is though I'm
sure they don't know what it does.
As well, the attempt by Sun to stick their fingers in everything is like
the behaviour of a greedy child. Soon there will be a JSR to define
which hand Java developers should wipe their ass with, it's just
ridiculous. I simply don't think they will come up with anything that's
a revelation to anyone here.
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason@zenplex.com
http://tambora.zenplex.org
In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
-- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: the POM and JSR 198
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com>.
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 21:55, dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
> This sounds interesting.
>
> Does anyone know how we get a representative or who is the Apache rep on
> JSR 198?
Join the JCP mailing list (jcp@apache.org) and you can ask to have a
member try to join or you can join as an individual. To make a long
story short no one was interested but knock yourself out.
> --
> dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
> Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/
>
>
> Jamie McCrindle <Ja...@three.co.uk> wrote on 23/07/2003 08:24:19
> PM:
>
> > All,
> >
> > Further to discussions on standardising the POM, i mailed Jose
> Cronembold,
> > the specification lead for jsr 198 about what the plans are for a
> > standardised project model.
> >
> > Jose kindly allowed me to republish his responses on this list.
> Apologies in
> > advance for any misrepresentation I've done of Maven.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > My first mail to Jose:
> >
> > hi,
> >
> > i've been working with maven (maven.apache.org) some time and recently
> there
> > has been some discussion on the mailing list about standardizing the
> project
> > object model. while maven is for the most part a plugin driven build
> > manager, it behaves a great deal like a headless ide. there seem to be
> > parallels between what maven does and what JSR 198 is trying to
> standardise
> > (at least in respect of non-ui functionality). while we could just wait
> for
> > the public draft, it would be useful to have some idea of the direction
> the
> > standard is taking and to what extent maven can conform to it, so here
> are
> > some questions:
> >
> > - has maven been considered in regards to jsr 198?
> > - if so, do you have any thoughts to the interoperability of the two
> (i.e.
> > could maven plugins be wrapped up as headless jsr 198 plugins and vice
> > versa)?
> > - is there any advanced information available to make integration
> easier?
> > - is a "project model" being standardised in jsr 198 (i.e. where all the
> > sources, dependencies, tests, resources, etc. for a project are).
> >
> > thanks,
> > jamie mccrindle.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Jose's Response:
> >
> > Hi Jamie,
> >
> > > - has maven been considered in regards to jsr 198
> > > - if so, do you have any thoughts to the interoperability of the two
> (i.e.
> > > could maven plugins be wrapped up as headless jsr 198 plugins and vice
> > > versa)?
> >
> > From what I gather Maven seems to be a build management
> > system that can be customized through plugins. The project object
> > model seems to control the build process.
> >
> > Early on, the jsr 198 expert group defined the scope of
> > the jsr and specifying the build system fell out of the current scope.
> > We are specifying a project model.
> >
> > I can see how Maven can be a plugin to Java IDEs, but it is not
> > clear if it makes sense for Maven's pluging to plug into an IDE
> > without Maven.
> >
> > It may also be difficult for a jsr 198 plugin to easily plug into Maven
> > since these plugins generally have GUI hooks into an IDE.
> >
> > > - is there any advanced information available to make integration
> easier?
> >
> > Currently, the specification is in its early stages and still evolving.
> > Nothing has
> > yet been made public.
> >
> > > - is a "project model" being standardised in jsr 198 (i.e. where all
> the
> > > sources, dependencies, tests, resources, etc. for a project are).
> >
> > Yes, jsr 198 is standarizing the in-memory project model but not how
> > that model is persisted.
> >
> >
> > Jose R. Cronembold
> > Oracle Corporation
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > My Reply:
> >
> > hi Jose,
> >
> > thanks for the reply. do you mind if i forward this to the maven list,
> as
> > i'm sure there are mavenites who would find this discussion useful?
> >
> > maven gets much of it's power from internally standardising it's project
> > model, hence our discussion on standardising it. since jsr 198 already
> > proposes to do this (runtime only), it would be interesting to explore
> > whether this project model can be adapted to jsr 198 and what level of
> > integration we could expect (there was talk of non-ui jsr 198 plugins
> that
> > can run under both Swing and SWT). it may make more sense just to expose
> > maven as a whole as a plugin to an ide but since they do share project
> > models there may be scope for deeper integration.
> >
> > any idea when we'll see a public draft? is the final version still on
> track
> > for the end of 2003?
> >
> > thanks,
> > jamie.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > His response:
> >
> > Hi Jamie,
> >
> > > thanks for the reply. do you mind if i forward this to the maven list,
> as
> > > i'm sure there are mavenites who would find this discussion useful?
> >
> > No problem.
> >
> > > maven gets much of it's power from internally standardising it's
> project
> > > model, hence our discussion on standardising it. since jsr 198 already
> > > proposes to do this (runtime only), it would be interesting to explore
> > > whether this project model can be adapted to jsr 198 and what level of
> > > integration we could expect (there was talk of non-ui jsr 198 plugins
> that
> > > can run under both Swing and SWT). it may make more sense just to
> expose
> > > maven as a whole as a plugin to an ide but since they do share project
> > > models there may be scope for deeper integration.
> >
> > We have not yet finalized the project model specification. The areas
> that
> > we will be covering include:
> >
> > - Source Path
> > - Class Path
> > - Output Directory (where .class files are generated).
> > - How plugin specific data is held by a project (this data are
> generally
> > project specific settings associated with a plugin and that end
> users
> > can change through a project settings dialog).
> >
> > > any idea when we'll see a public draft? is the final version still on
> > track
> > > for the end of 2003?
> >
> > Probably by the begining of next year.
> >
> > Jose R. Cronembold
> > Oracle Corporation
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > My last reply:
> >
> > hi Jose,
> >
> > > We have not yet finalized the project model specification.
> > > The areas that
> > > we will be covering include:
> > >
> > > - Source Path
> > > - Class Path
> > > - Output Directory (where .class files are generated).
> > > - How plugin specific data is held by a project (this data
> > > are generally
> > > project specific settings associated with a plugin and
> > > that end users
> > > can change through a project settings dialog).
> > >
> >
> > Are the dependencies going to be modelled at all (jars, zips, other
> projects
> > etc?)
> >
> > regards,
> > jamie.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > This e-mail message (including any attachment) is intended only for
> > the personal
> > use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is confidential and
> may be
> > legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, you may
> > not review, copy or
> > distribute this message. If you have received this communication in
> > error, please notify
> > us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
> >
> > Any views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author
> only.
> > Furthermore, this message (including any attachment) does not create
> > any legally
> > binding rights or obligations whatsoever, which may only be created
> > by the exchange
> > of hard copy documents signed by a duly authorised representative
> ofHutchison
> > 3G UK Limited.
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
> >
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason@zenplex.com
http://tambora.zenplex.org
In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
-- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: the POM and JSR 198
Posted by di...@multitask.com.au.
This sounds interesting.
Does anyone know how we get a representative or who is the Apache rep on
JSR 198?
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/
Jamie McCrindle <Ja...@three.co.uk> wrote on 23/07/2003 08:24:19
PM:
> All,
>
> Further to discussions on standardising the POM, i mailed Jose
Cronembold,
> the specification lead for jsr 198 about what the plans are for a
> standardised project model.
>
> Jose kindly allowed me to republish his responses on this list.
Apologies in
> advance for any misrepresentation I've done of Maven.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> My first mail to Jose:
>
> hi,
>
> i've been working with maven (maven.apache.org) some time and recently
there
> has been some discussion on the mailing list about standardizing the
project
> object model. while maven is for the most part a plugin driven build
> manager, it behaves a great deal like a headless ide. there seem to be
> parallels between what maven does and what JSR 198 is trying to
standardise
> (at least in respect of non-ui functionality). while we could just wait
for
> the public draft, it would be useful to have some idea of the direction
the
> standard is taking and to what extent maven can conform to it, so here
are
> some questions:
>
> - has maven been considered in regards to jsr 198?
> - if so, do you have any thoughts to the interoperability of the two
(i.e.
> could maven plugins be wrapped up as headless jsr 198 plugins and vice
> versa)?
> - is there any advanced information available to make integration
easier?
> - is a "project model" being standardised in jsr 198 (i.e. where all the
> sources, dependencies, tests, resources, etc. for a project are).
>
> thanks,
> jamie mccrindle.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Jose's Response:
>
> Hi Jamie,
>
> > - has maven been considered in regards to jsr 198
> > - if so, do you have any thoughts to the interoperability of the two
(i.e.
> > could maven plugins be wrapped up as headless jsr 198 plugins and vice
> > versa)?
>
> From what I gather Maven seems to be a build management
> system that can be customized through plugins. The project object
> model seems to control the build process.
>
> Early on, the jsr 198 expert group defined the scope of
> the jsr and specifying the build system fell out of the current scope.
> We are specifying a project model.
>
> I can see how Maven can be a plugin to Java IDEs, but it is not
> clear if it makes sense for Maven's pluging to plug into an IDE
> without Maven.
>
> It may also be difficult for a jsr 198 plugin to easily plug into Maven
> since these plugins generally have GUI hooks into an IDE.
>
> > - is there any advanced information available to make integration
easier?
>
> Currently, the specification is in its early stages and still evolving.
> Nothing has
> yet been made public.
>
> > - is a "project model" being standardised in jsr 198 (i.e. where all
the
> > sources, dependencies, tests, resources, etc. for a project are).
>
> Yes, jsr 198 is standarizing the in-memory project model but not how
> that model is persisted.
>
>
> Jose R. Cronembold
> Oracle Corporation
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> My Reply:
>
> hi Jose,
>
> thanks for the reply. do you mind if i forward this to the maven list,
as
> i'm sure there are mavenites who would find this discussion useful?
>
> maven gets much of it's power from internally standardising it's project
> model, hence our discussion on standardising it. since jsr 198 already
> proposes to do this (runtime only), it would be interesting to explore
> whether this project model can be adapted to jsr 198 and what level of
> integration we could expect (there was talk of non-ui jsr 198 plugins
that
> can run under both Swing and SWT). it may make more sense just to expose
> maven as a whole as a plugin to an ide but since they do share project
> models there may be scope for deeper integration.
>
> any idea when we'll see a public draft? is the final version still on
track
> for the end of 2003?
>
> thanks,
> jamie.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> His response:
>
> Hi Jamie,
>
> > thanks for the reply. do you mind if i forward this to the maven list,
as
> > i'm sure there are mavenites who would find this discussion useful?
>
> No problem.
>
> > maven gets much of it's power from internally standardising it's
project
> > model, hence our discussion on standardising it. since jsr 198 already
> > proposes to do this (runtime only), it would be interesting to explore
> > whether this project model can be adapted to jsr 198 and what level of
> > integration we could expect (there was talk of non-ui jsr 198 plugins
that
> > can run under both Swing and SWT). it may make more sense just to
expose
> > maven as a whole as a plugin to an ide but since they do share project
> > models there may be scope for deeper integration.
>
> We have not yet finalized the project model specification. The areas
that
> we will be covering include:
>
> - Source Path
> - Class Path
> - Output Directory (where .class files are generated).
> - How plugin specific data is held by a project (this data are
generally
> project specific settings associated with a plugin and that end
users
> can change through a project settings dialog).
>
> > any idea when we'll see a public draft? is the final version still on
> track
> > for the end of 2003?
>
> Probably by the begining of next year.
>
> Jose R. Cronembold
> Oracle Corporation
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> My last reply:
>
> hi Jose,
>
> > We have not yet finalized the project model specification.
> > The areas that
> > we will be covering include:
> >
> > - Source Path
> > - Class Path
> > - Output Directory (where .class files are generated).
> > - How plugin specific data is held by a project (this data
> > are generally
> > project specific settings associated with a plugin and
> > that end users
> > can change through a project settings dialog).
> >
>
> Are the dependencies going to be modelled at all (jars, zips, other
projects
> etc?)
>
> regards,
> jamie.
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> This e-mail message (including any attachment) is intended only for
> the personal
> use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is confidential and
may be
> legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, you may
> not review, copy or
> distribute this message. If you have received this communication in
> error, please notify
> us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author
only.
> Furthermore, this message (including any attachment) does not create
> any legally
> binding rights or obligations whatsoever, which may only be created
> by the exchange
> of hard copy documents signed by a duly authorised representative
ofHutchison
> 3G UK Limited.
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
>