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:[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 instant documentation that can't get out of date.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] -- 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]
