On 11/23/05, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know it will make the files much longer, but I'd prefer we drop or > deprecate support for the single line dependency declaration, which > means we require the full format:
I object to doing this. I really think most users are going to want to give their applications short and sweet config IDs like "AppName". OK, yes, that means you can't use the packaging plugin to install them, but I as a user am totally comfortable with that, and I don't see why I should have to do something like the huge block below for every little module I write. P.S. I also would be opposed to needing to specify the parentId using 4 attributes. So I won't kick and scream too much if you change our server components to use stuff like that in their own plans, but I will be pretty grumpy if users are required to use that in order to write any basic Geronimo plan containing a configId and parentId. And since there's no distinguishing between the elements that point to a location in the repository and the elements that simply take an abstract URI (another mistake IMHO but David J continues to overrule me on this one), if you're going to be allowed to name your database pool "MyPool" and then create an app "MyApp" with "MyPool" as a parent or dependency, we can't insist that people use the Maven-style format. I think this would all be a lot more palatable if we could think up a way for a user to use a short name like "MyApp" and we use more large and explicit naming under the covers but allow the user to do everything with only "MyApp", but I think that might be challenging. Aaron > <dependency> > <groupId>org.apache.geronimo</groupId> > <artifactId>kernel</artifactId> > <version>1.0</version> > </dependency> > > > So I think this format proposal takes care of (3) and (4) and I > > already implemented (1) and (2) although with the : separator. I'm > > not sure if this format might cause confusion anywhere between a > > resolvable path URI and this more abstract configId format. > > It is possible. Who will actually see it? If it is just us geronimo > programmers, we should document it. If it is users, I think we > should think about mitigating the impact. > > >> Are there any other changes of note? > > > > Using the plugins rather than tons of jelly is a big change, but > > I'm not sure what else might be a change "of note". Also for a > > while now the plugin-based build has been extracting dependency > > info from project.xml rather than requiring you to duplicate it. > > Cool. I was really asking about changes to the internal stuff or to > the plans themselves. > > -dain > >
