Hmm, sounds interesting. Is there a blog post that provides any more detail on the consumer pom concept?
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Stephen Connolly < [email protected]> wrote: > We are planning on changing the pom format when we move to modelVersion > 5.0.0 (which currently looks like a Maven 4.0 goal) > > Our current plan is to get 3.2.x stabilised and perhaps roll a 3.3 line > with new features until we are in agreement over what a modelVersion 5.0.0 > pom should look like. > > One of the current suggestions that may be gaining traction is to separate > the consumer pom from the build pom. The consumer pom would be designed > with machine parsing as the priority... there would actually be two of them > both generated from the build pom. The first consumer pom would be a > modelVersion 4.0.0 regular pom so that older clients can still make some > sense of the artifacts. The second consumer pom would allow the new > features we want to add and hopefully be a format where we can extend > without fear of breaking future existing clients... in other words Maven is > not the only consumer of pom files, so we need a format that can evolve > going forward without risking breaking the other parsers out there... and > since some of these parsers are not even JVM based we cannot force them to > use our JVM based parser. > > The builder pom, since it is only used by Maven when building a project, > can actually have a much simpler set of format restrictions... such as you > cannot depend on a parent builder pom that uses a newer modelVersion than > yours. > > > On 25 February 2014 05:16, William Ferguson > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > One of the common complaints I hear about Maven is that the config is too > > verbose, especially when compared to the attribute based dependency > config > > used by Ivy. Personally it doesn't worry me overly, but if the config for > > dependencies/plugins where to become attribute based instead of element > > based it could really condense a pom and improve readability. > > > > Are there any plans to move to an attribute based config post 3.2? > > > > William > > >
