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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 instant documentation that can't get out of date.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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- > > > jvz. > > > > > > Jason van Zyl > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > jvz. > > Jason van Zyl > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
