You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@maven.apache.org by Jason van Zyl <jv...@maven.org> on 2004/04/21 20:59:01 UTC
Re: Is there a problem to adding the POM element now + POM4
in Maven 1.0?
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 14:38, Vincent Massol wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Would it be a problem to add the <type> element for Maven RC3?
It most likely wouldn't be a problem, but during RC is not the time to
be changing the model.
You can see the differences here between v3 and v4. Anything with 3.0.0+
is carried forward, anything with 3.0.0 is not generated when v4.0.0
set.
I don't particularly care, but I leave the call to Brett because he's
dealing with the 1.0.
One of the first backports I want to do though post 1.0 is to use the
generated model: for clarity and the automatically generated
documentation that is contained within the model.
> If we
> make it optional (and default for example to "jar")
That what it's modelled as in v4.0.0.
> I think it will be
> 100% backward compatible. The plugins will not use it for now. But at
> least the users will be able to start using it to type their projects.
Now that you mention this, I don't think it's a good idea because what
are the types going to be? This type will be analogous to the
discussions we had regarding dependency type and possibly kind. I would
prefer people not start using this element until we have defined what
the values can be.
> Actually I don't recall why my changes for POM4 were removed from the
> Maven 1.0 branch as I think they were all 100% backward compatible,
> including plugins.
Because they happened during the rc cycle? I don't know. I didn't notice
myself.
> I need to ask: Why couldn't we support both POM3 and POM4 for Maven 1.0?
Because we don't know what v4 will look like completely. I have no
problem supporting v4 later on in the 1.x cycle but not now. There are
already differences that would make it difficult.
Modello can now generate distinct versions of the model, and I've
partially completed the generation of converters between distinct
versions of the model. That is the tool I would like to use to convert
on the fly and in the conversion wizard.
> The only constraint that we will have is that all plugins must continue
> to work with POM3 till version 1.0 is released.
I'm all for support for v4 in the 1.x but we don't know yet what it will
look like in its entirely and it probably just isn't a good idea to
introduce yet incomplete idea.
Let's get 1.0 out and then go to town with subsequent changes. I think
that's a more reasonable plan of action.
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason@maven.org
http://maven.apache.org
happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come
and sit softly on your shoulder ...
-- Thoreau
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
RE: Is there a problem to adding the POM element now+POM4in
Maven 1.0?
Posted by Jason van Zyl <jv...@maven.org>.
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 16:50, Vincent Massol wrote:
> The reason I'm asking is to judge whether we can commit it to HEAD
> easily. I would like to avoid as much as possible big changes that take
> long time. Remember the problem we had a few months back when we made
> some big change in HEAD and HEAD stayed broken for way too long.
It was way too long, it just shouldn't have been committed. But that
won't happen again because I won't commit code anymore simply because
someone asks me to.
> >
> > > Will it be backward compatible for 1.0
> > > users?
> >
> > To my knowledge what is represented in model file for 3.0.0 is
> accurate,
> > but if it's not it's easy to correct. To use the v4.0.0 POM we would
> > just need to look at the version specified and folks could even use a
> > v4.0.0 POM and internally we could convert back to v3.0.0 if the
> > majority of the plugins require it.
>
> Cool
If you want to see it integrated in working form I can do it a day next
week. I assume you want to try out some of the newer elements?
We'll just see what Brett's up to, I don't want to step on any toes as
the 1.0 code is his as far as I'm concerned.
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason@maven.org
http://maven.apache.org
happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come
and sit softly on your shoulder ...
-- Thoreau
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
RE: Is there a problem to adding the POM element now+POM4in Maven 1.0?
Posted by Vincent Massol <vm...@pivolis.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:jvanzyl@maven.org]
> Sent: 21 April 2004 21:58
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: RE: Is there a problem to adding the POM <type> element
> now+POM4in Maven 1.0?
>
> On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 15:39, Vincent Massol wrote:
>
> > Sounds ok to me in principle. Is it a big change?
>
> I'm honestly not sure how much work it is, but I don't imagine more
than
> a days work looking at the code.
>
> > Can it be done
> > relatively quickly on HEAD?
>
> I don't think quickly is as important a criterion as properly? The use
> of the model and components being backported in subsequent 1.x
releases
> is something I am adamant about. Once the generated model artifacts
are
> integrated subsequent changes are easy, in addition to the
documentation
> always being up-to-date.
The reason I'm asking is to judge whether we can commit it to HEAD
easily. I would like to avoid as much as possible big changes that take
long time. Remember the problem we had a few months back when we made
some big change in HEAD and HEAD stayed broken for way too long.
>
> > Will it be backward compatible for 1.0
> > users?
>
> To my knowledge what is represented in model file for 3.0.0 is
accurate,
> but if it's not it's easy to correct. To use the v4.0.0 POM we would
> just need to look at the version specified and folks could even use a
> v4.0.0 POM and internally we could convert back to v3.0.0 if the
> majority of the plugins require it.
Cool
Thanks
-Vincent
>
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:jvanzyl@maven.org]
> > > Sent: 21 April 2004 21:22
> > > To: Maven Developers List
> > > Subject: RE: Is there a problem to adding the POM <type> element
now
> > > +POM4in Maven 1.0?
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 15:12, Vincent Massol wrote:
> > > > I know I was missing something! I had somehow forgotten we were
in a
> > rc
> > > > cycle! :-)
> > > >
> > > > I can use HEAD for this. Brett, do you know if HEAD is up to
date
> > with
> > > > the 1.0 branch?
> > >
> > > If this will be for subsequent 1.x releases then I would like the
> > > generated model used as the meshing of the v3 and v4 models is the
> > path
> > > of unification between maven1 and maven2.
> > >
> > > But for the simple fact that just using the model file means we
have
> > > instant documentation that can't get out of date. We don't even
have
> > to
> > > use the ProjectBuilder component, just using the generated model
> > > artifacts (xpp3 reader/writer, XSD and Xdoc which has a sample
> > > descriptor with links) has a huge advantage.
> > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > -Vincent
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:jvanzyl@maven.org]
> > > > > Sent: 21 April 2004 20:59
> > > > > To: Maven Developers List
> > > > > Subject: Re: Is there a problem to adding the POM <type>
element
> > now +
> > > > > POM4in Maven 1.0?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 14:38, Vincent Massol wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would it be a problem to add the <type> element for Maven
RC3?
> > > > >
> > > > > It most likely wouldn't be a problem, but during RC is not the
> > time to
> > > > > be changing the model.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can see the differences here between v3 and v4. Anything
with
> > > > 3.0.0+
> > > > > is carried forward, anything with 3.0.0 is not generated when
> > v4.0.0
> > > > > set.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't particularly care, but I leave the call to Brett
because
> > he's
> > > > > dealing with the 1.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > One of the first backports I want to do though post 1.0 is to
use
> > the
> > > > > generated model: for clarity and the automatically generated
> > > > > documentation that is contained within the model.
> > > > >
> > > > > > If we
> > > > > > make it optional (and default for example to "jar")
> > > > >
> > > > > That what it's modelled as in v4.0.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think it will be
> > > > > > 100% backward compatible. The plugins will not use it for
now.
> > But
> > > > at
> > > > > > least the users will be able to start using it to type their
> > > > projects.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now that you mention this, I don't think it's a good idea
because
> > what
> > > > > are the types going to be? This type will be analogous to the
> > > > > discussions we had regarding dependency type and possibly
kind. I
> > > > would
> > > > > prefer people not start using this element until we have
defined
> > what
> > > > > the values can be.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Actually I don't recall why my changes for POM4 were removed
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > > Maven 1.0 branch as I think they were all 100% backward
> > compatible,
> > > > > > including plugins.
> > > > >
> > > > > Because they happened during the rc cycle? I don't know. I
didn't
> > > > notice
> > > > > myself.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I need to ask: Why couldn't we support both POM3 and POM4
for
> > Maven
> > > > 1.0?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because we don't know what v4 will look like completely. I
have no
> > > > > problem supporting v4 later on in the 1.x cycle but not now.
There
> > are
> > > > > already differences that would make it difficult.
> > > > >
> > > > > Modello can now generate distinct versions of the model, and
I've
> > > > > partially completed the generation of converters between
distinct
> > > > > versions of the model. That is the tool I would like to use to
> > convert
> > > > > on the fly and in the conversion wizard.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The only constraint that we will have is that all plugins
must
> > > > continue
> > > > > > to work with POM3 till version 1.0 is released.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm all for support for v4 in the 1.x but we don't know yet
what
> > it
> > > > will
> > > > > look like in its entirely and it probably just isn't a good
idea
> > to
> > > > > introduce yet incomplete idea.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's get 1.0 out and then go to town with subsequent changes.
I
> > think
> > > > > that's a more reasonable plan of action.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > -Vincent
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > jvz.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jason van Zyl
> > > > > jason@maven.org
> > > > > http://maven.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more
it
> > will
> > > > > elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it
will
> > > > come
> > > > > and sit softly on your shoulder ...
> > > > >
> > > > > -- Thoreau
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > 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
> > >
> > > --
> > > jvz.
> > >
> > > Jason van Zyl
> > > jason@maven.org
> > > http://maven.apache.org
> > >
> > > happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it
will
> > > elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will
> > come
> > > and sit softly on your shoulder ...
> > >
> > > -- Thoreau
> > >
> > >
> > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
>
> --
> jvz.
>
> Jason van Zyl
> jason@maven.org
> http://maven.apache.org
>
> happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
> elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will
come
> and sit softly on your shoulder ...
>
> -- Thoreau
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Is there a problem to adding the POM element now
+POM4in Maven 1.0?
Posted by Jason van Zyl <jv...@maven.org>.
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 15:39, Vincent Massol wrote:
> Sounds ok to me in principle. Is it a big change?
I'm honestly not sure how much work it is, but I don't imagine more than
a days work looking at the code.
> Can it be done
> relatively quickly on HEAD?
I don't think quickly is as important a criterion as properly? The use
of the model and components being backported in subsequent 1.x releases
is something I am adamant about. Once the generated model artifacts are
integrated subsequent changes are easy, in addition to the documentation
always being up-to-date.
> Will it be backward compatible for 1.0
> users?
To my knowledge what is represented in model file for 3.0.0 is accurate,
but if it's not it's easy to correct. To use the v4.0.0 POM we would
just need to look at the version specified and folks could even use a
v4.0.0 POM and internally we could convert back to v3.0.0 if the
majority of the plugins require it.
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:jvanzyl@maven.org]
> > Sent: 21 April 2004 21:22
> > To: Maven Developers List
> > Subject: RE: Is there a problem to adding the POM <type> element now
> > +POM4in Maven 1.0?
> >
> > On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 15:12, Vincent Massol wrote:
> > > I know I was missing something! I had somehow forgotten we were in a
> rc
> > > cycle! :-)
> > >
> > > I can use HEAD for this. Brett, do you know if HEAD is up to date
> with
> > > the 1.0 branch?
> >
> > If this will be for subsequent 1.x releases then I would like the
> > generated model used as the meshing of the v3 and v4 models is the
> path
> > of unification between maven1 and maven2.
> >
> > But for the simple fact that just using the model file means we have
> > instant documentation that can't get out of date. We don't even have
> to
> > use the ProjectBuilder component, just using the generated model
> > artifacts (xpp3 reader/writer, XSD and Xdoc which has a sample
> > descriptor with links) has a huge advantage.
> >
> > > Thanks
> > > -Vincent
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:jvanzyl@maven.org]
> > > > Sent: 21 April 2004 20:59
> > > > To: Maven Developers List
> > > > Subject: Re: Is there a problem to adding the POM <type> element
> now +
> > > > POM4in Maven 1.0?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 14:38, Vincent Massol wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Would it be a problem to add the <type> element for Maven RC3?
> > > >
> > > > It most likely wouldn't be a problem, but during RC is not the
> time to
> > > > be changing the model.
> > > >
> > > > You can see the differences here between v3 and v4. Anything with
> > > 3.0.0+
> > > > is carried forward, anything with 3.0.0 is not generated when
> v4.0.0
> > > > set.
> > > >
> > > > I don't particularly care, but I leave the call to Brett because
> he's
> > > > dealing with the 1.0.
> > > >
> > > > One of the first backports I want to do though post 1.0 is to use
> the
> > > > generated model: for clarity and the automatically generated
> > > > documentation that is contained within the model.
> > > >
> > > > > If we
> > > > > make it optional (and default for example to "jar")
> > > >
> > > > That what it's modelled as in v4.0.0.
> > > >
> > > > > I think it will be
> > > > > 100% backward compatible. The plugins will not use it for now.
> But
> > > at
> > > > > least the users will be able to start using it to type their
> > > projects.
> > > >
> > > > Now that you mention this, I don't think it's a good idea because
> what
> > > > are the types going to be? This type will be analogous to the
> > > > discussions we had regarding dependency type and possibly kind. I
> > > would
> > > > prefer people not start using this element until we have defined
> what
> > > > the values can be.
> > > >
> > > > > Actually I don't recall why my changes for POM4 were removed
> from
> > > the
> > > > > Maven 1.0 branch as I think they were all 100% backward
> compatible,
> > > > > including plugins.
> > > >
> > > > Because they happened during the rc cycle? I don't know. I didn't
> > > notice
> > > > myself.
> > > >
> > > > > I need to ask: Why couldn't we support both POM3 and POM4 for
> Maven
> > > 1.0?
> > > >
> > > > Because we don't know what v4 will look like completely. I have no
> > > > problem supporting v4 later on in the 1.x cycle but not now. There
> are
> > > > already differences that would make it difficult.
> > > >
> > > > Modello can now generate distinct versions of the model, and I've
> > > > partially completed the generation of converters between distinct
> > > > versions of the model. That is the tool I would like to use to
> convert
> > > > on the fly and in the conversion wizard.
> > > >
> > > > > The only constraint that we will have is that all plugins must
> > > continue
> > > > > to work with POM3 till version 1.0 is released.
> > > >
> > > > I'm all for support for v4 in the 1.x but we don't know yet what
> it
> > > will
> > > > look like in its entirely and it probably just isn't a good idea
> to
> > > > introduce yet incomplete idea.
> > > >
> > > > Let's get 1.0 out and then go to town with subsequent changes. I
> think
> > > > that's a more reasonable plan of action.
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > -Vincent
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > jvz.
> > > >
> > > > Jason van Zyl
> > > > jason@maven.org
> > > > http://maven.apache.org
> > > >
> > > > happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it
> will
> > > > elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will
> > > come
> > > > and sit softly on your shoulder ...
> > > >
> > > > -- Thoreau
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 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
> >
> > --
> > jvz.
> >
> > Jason van Zyl
> > jason@maven.org
> > http://maven.apache.org
> >
> > happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
> > elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will
> come
> > and sit softly on your shoulder ...
> >
> > -- Thoreau
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason@maven.org
http://maven.apache.org
happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come
and sit softly on your shoulder ...
-- Thoreau
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
RE: Is there a problem to adding the POM element now +POM4in Maven 1.0?
Posted by Vincent Massol <vm...@pivolis.com>.
Sounds ok to me in principle. Is it a big change? Can it be done
relatively quickly on HEAD? Will it be backward compatible for 1.0
users?
Thanks
-Vincent
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:jvanzyl@maven.org]
> Sent: 21 April 2004 21:22
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: RE: Is there a problem to adding the POM <type> element now
> +POM4in Maven 1.0?
>
> On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 15:12, Vincent Massol wrote:
> > I know I was missing something! I had somehow forgotten we were in a
rc
> > cycle! :-)
> >
> > I can use HEAD for this. Brett, do you know if HEAD is up to date
with
> > the 1.0 branch?
>
> If this will be for subsequent 1.x releases then I would like the
> generated model used as the meshing of the v3 and v4 models is the
path
> of unification between maven1 and maven2.
>
> But for the simple fact that just using the model file means we have
> instant documentation that can't get out of date. We don't even have
to
> use the ProjectBuilder component, just using the generated model
> artifacts (xpp3 reader/writer, XSD and Xdoc which has a sample
> descriptor with links) has a huge advantage.
>
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:jvanzyl@maven.org]
> > > Sent: 21 April 2004 20:59
> > > To: Maven Developers List
> > > Subject: Re: Is there a problem to adding the POM <type> element
now +
> > > POM4in Maven 1.0?
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 14:38, Vincent Massol wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Would it be a problem to add the <type> element for Maven RC3?
> > >
> > > It most likely wouldn't be a problem, but during RC is not the
time to
> > > be changing the model.
> > >
> > > You can see the differences here between v3 and v4. Anything with
> > 3.0.0+
> > > is carried forward, anything with 3.0.0 is not generated when
v4.0.0
> > > set.
> > >
> > > I don't particularly care, but I leave the call to Brett because
he's
> > > dealing with the 1.0.
> > >
> > > One of the first backports I want to do though post 1.0 is to use
the
> > > generated model: for clarity and the automatically generated
> > > documentation that is contained within the model.
> > >
> > > > If we
> > > > make it optional (and default for example to "jar")
> > >
> > > That what it's modelled as in v4.0.0.
> > >
> > > > I think it will be
> > > > 100% backward compatible. The plugins will not use it for now.
But
> > at
> > > > least the users will be able to start using it to type their
> > projects.
> > >
> > > Now that you mention this, I don't think it's a good idea because
what
> > > are the types going to be? This type will be analogous to the
> > > discussions we had regarding dependency type and possibly kind. I
> > would
> > > prefer people not start using this element until we have defined
what
> > > the values can be.
> > >
> > > > Actually I don't recall why my changes for POM4 were removed
from
> > the
> > > > Maven 1.0 branch as I think they were all 100% backward
compatible,
> > > > including plugins.
> > >
> > > Because they happened during the rc cycle? I don't know. I didn't
> > notice
> > > myself.
> > >
> > > > I need to ask: Why couldn't we support both POM3 and POM4 for
Maven
> > 1.0?
> > >
> > > Because we don't know what v4 will look like completely. I have no
> > > problem supporting v4 later on in the 1.x cycle but not now. There
are
> > > already differences that would make it difficult.
> > >
> > > Modello can now generate distinct versions of the model, and I've
> > > partially completed the generation of converters between distinct
> > > versions of the model. That is the tool I would like to use to
convert
> > > on the fly and in the conversion wizard.
> > >
> > > > The only constraint that we will have is that all plugins must
> > continue
> > > > to work with POM3 till version 1.0 is released.
> > >
> > > I'm all for support for v4 in the 1.x but we don't know yet what
it
> > will
> > > look like in its entirely and it probably just isn't a good idea
to
> > > introduce yet incomplete idea.
> > >
> > > Let's get 1.0 out and then go to town with subsequent changes. I
think
> > > that's a more reasonable plan of action.
> > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > -Vincent
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> > >
> > > --
> > > jvz.
> > >
> > > Jason van Zyl
> > > jason@maven.org
> > > http://maven.apache.org
> > >
> > > happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it
will
> > > elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will
> > come
> > > and sit softly on your shoulder ...
> > >
> > > -- Thoreau
> > >
> > >
> > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
>
> --
> jvz.
>
> Jason van Zyl
> jason@maven.org
> http://maven.apache.org
>
> happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
> elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will
come
> and sit softly on your shoulder ...
>
> -- Thoreau
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Is there a problem to adding the POM element now +
POM4in Maven 1.0?
Posted by Jason van Zyl <jv...@maven.org>.
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 15:12, Vincent Massol wrote:
> I know I was missing something! I had somehow forgotten we were in a rc
> cycle! :-)
>
> I can use HEAD for this. Brett, do you know if HEAD is up to date with
> the 1.0 branch?
If this will be for subsequent 1.x releases then I would like the
generated model used as the meshing of the v3 and v4 models is the path
of unification between maven1 and maven2.
But for the simple fact that just using the model file means we have
instant documentation that can't get out of date. We don't even have to
use the ProjectBuilder component, just using the generated model
artifacts (xpp3 reader/writer, XSD and Xdoc which has a sample
descriptor with links) has a huge advantage.
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:jvanzyl@maven.org]
> > Sent: 21 April 2004 20:59
> > To: Maven Developers List
> > Subject: Re: Is there a problem to adding the POM <type> element now +
> > POM4in Maven 1.0?
> >
> > On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 14:38, Vincent Massol wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Would it be a problem to add the <type> element for Maven RC3?
> >
> > It most likely wouldn't be a problem, but during RC is not the time to
> > be changing the model.
> >
> > You can see the differences here between v3 and v4. Anything with
> 3.0.0+
> > is carried forward, anything with 3.0.0 is not generated when v4.0.0
> > set.
> >
> > I don't particularly care, but I leave the call to Brett because he's
> > dealing with the 1.0.
> >
> > One of the first backports I want to do though post 1.0 is to use the
> > generated model: for clarity and the automatically generated
> > documentation that is contained within the model.
> >
> > > If we
> > > make it optional (and default for example to "jar")
> >
> > That what it's modelled as in v4.0.0.
> >
> > > I think it will be
> > > 100% backward compatible. The plugins will not use it for now. But
> at
> > > least the users will be able to start using it to type their
> projects.
> >
> > Now that you mention this, I don't think it's a good idea because what
> > are the types going to be? This type will be analogous to the
> > discussions we had regarding dependency type and possibly kind. I
> would
> > prefer people not start using this element until we have defined what
> > the values can be.
> >
> > > Actually I don't recall why my changes for POM4 were removed from
> the
> > > Maven 1.0 branch as I think they were all 100% backward compatible,
> > > including plugins.
> >
> > Because they happened during the rc cycle? I don't know. I didn't
> notice
> > myself.
> >
> > > I need to ask: Why couldn't we support both POM3 and POM4 for Maven
> 1.0?
> >
> > Because we don't know what v4 will look like completely. I have no
> > problem supporting v4 later on in the 1.x cycle but not now. There are
> > already differences that would make it difficult.
> >
> > Modello can now generate distinct versions of the model, and I've
> > partially completed the generation of converters between distinct
> > versions of the model. That is the tool I would like to use to convert
> > on the fly and in the conversion wizard.
> >
> > > The only constraint that we will have is that all plugins must
> continue
> > > to work with POM3 till version 1.0 is released.
> >
> > I'm all for support for v4 in the 1.x but we don't know yet what it
> will
> > look like in its entirely and it probably just isn't a good idea to
> > introduce yet incomplete idea.
> >
> > Let's get 1.0 out and then go to town with subsequent changes. I think
> > that's a more reasonable plan of action.
> >
> > > Thanks
> > > -Vincent
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> > --
> > jvz.
> >
> > Jason van Zyl
> > jason@maven.org
> > http://maven.apache.org
> >
> > happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
> > elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will
> come
> > and sit softly on your shoulder ...
> >
> > -- Thoreau
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason@maven.org
http://maven.apache.org
happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come
and sit softly on your shoulder ...
-- Thoreau
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
RE: Is there a problem to adding the POM element now + POM4in Maven 1.0?
Posted by Vincent Massol <vm...@pivolis.com>.
I know I was missing something! I had somehow forgotten we were in a rc
cycle! :-)
I can use HEAD for this. Brett, do you know if HEAD is up to date with
the 1.0 branch?
Thanks
-Vincent
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:jvanzyl@maven.org]
> Sent: 21 April 2004 20:59
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: Is there a problem to adding the POM <type> element now +
> POM4in Maven 1.0?
>
> On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 14:38, Vincent Massol wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Would it be a problem to add the <type> element for Maven RC3?
>
> It most likely wouldn't be a problem, but during RC is not the time to
> be changing the model.
>
> You can see the differences here between v3 and v4. Anything with
3.0.0+
> is carried forward, anything with 3.0.0 is not generated when v4.0.0
> set.
>
> I don't particularly care, but I leave the call to Brett because he's
> dealing with the 1.0.
>
> One of the first backports I want to do though post 1.0 is to use the
> generated model: for clarity and the automatically generated
> documentation that is contained within the model.
>
> > If we
> > make it optional (and default for example to "jar")
>
> That what it's modelled as in v4.0.0.
>
> > I think it will be
> > 100% backward compatible. The plugins will not use it for now. But
at
> > least the users will be able to start using it to type their
projects.
>
> Now that you mention this, I don't think it's a good idea because what
> are the types going to be? This type will be analogous to the
> discussions we had regarding dependency type and possibly kind. I
would
> prefer people not start using this element until we have defined what
> the values can be.
>
> > Actually I don't recall why my changes for POM4 were removed from
the
> > Maven 1.0 branch as I think they were all 100% backward compatible,
> > including plugins.
>
> Because they happened during the rc cycle? I don't know. I didn't
notice
> myself.
>
> > I need to ask: Why couldn't we support both POM3 and POM4 for Maven
1.0?
>
> Because we don't know what v4 will look like completely. I have no
> problem supporting v4 later on in the 1.x cycle but not now. There are
> already differences that would make it difficult.
>
> Modello can now generate distinct versions of the model, and I've
> partially completed the generation of converters between distinct
> versions of the model. That is the tool I would like to use to convert
> on the fly and in the conversion wizard.
>
> > The only constraint that we will have is that all plugins must
continue
> > to work with POM3 till version 1.0 is released.
>
> I'm all for support for v4 in the 1.x but we don't know yet what it
will
> look like in its entirely and it probably just isn't a good idea to
> introduce yet incomplete idea.
>
> Let's get 1.0 out and then go to town with subsequent changes. I think
> that's a more reasonable plan of action.
>
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
> >
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
> --
> jvz.
>
> Jason van Zyl
> jason@maven.org
> http://maven.apache.org
>
> happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
> elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will
come
> and sit softly on your shoulder ...
>
> -- Thoreau
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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