+1 for a) - People that don't care about it don't need to worry - It works similarly within groups that share the same encodings - When it breaks, because cross-unicode-script contributors are involved, then it needs to be specified in the pom.
The downside of b) is that it forces all those who don't use latin-1 to set it in the pom, even if they're all using the same default encoding. Note: it would probably be a good idea to include the encoding used (whether default or set) in the plugin report information. W On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Roger Ye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > On 4/30/08, Benjamin Bentmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I agree, having users explicitly state the encoding in their POMs is the > > best we can have, the same applies to locking down plugin versions by > the > > way. No guessing, no implicit default values, just full control, let's > call > > it "heaven" ;-) > > > > But how to get their? The threat I see with continuing to use the > platform > > default encoding is that people will be left unaware of the encoding > issue > > because platform default encoding works just nicely most of time. > > > For projects involving developers from different country (i.e. the > developers use different default encodings from one to another), it's a > must > for everyone in the team / project to understand that his/her default > encoding is not the "default" for others, e.g. I'm from China, I've > created > a Maven project, using the my default encoding GBK, and then shared it > with > you, Benjamin, then how would you collaborate with me? surely you cannot > assume the encoding to be iso-8859-xx (your system default, excuse me if > I'm > wrong) > Then there are two solutions IMO: > 1). we set GBK as source file encoding in pom.xml > 2). we don't change pom.xml, but we both use an imaginary-maven-fork which > treats every file as encoded in GBK, this does not be platform-dependent. > as > option b) > > will you agree with solution 2)? even if there're 99 developers from China > while only one of you from Germany :P > > so, I insist option a), and if it's problematic without explicit encoding, > it means an explicit encoding is required in the POM. > > and I also insist that it's important for developers to understand the > root > cause of the inconsistent build result generated by developers from > different country / region. > such developers should understand Unicode, and different encodings, and > how > the platform default encoding affects the build result. > > Thanks > Roger > > Or just a warning for not to expect "whole world is just using your > > > preferred encoding"? > > > > > Yes, a nice warning is surely due if a) wins. > > Benjamin > > > > >
