I'm very glad you get some use out of reproducible builds. Especially given
the amount of work it seems to take (seems like ~1 out of every 3 emails is
about this). And you are right about my co-workers (pity me). But perhaps you
are not appreciating the scale of the problem. Maven is losing an entire
generation of devs right now for a very silly reason. Don't dismiss it as just
a grumble when it is so commonly heard.
The issues with XML are more than just attributes. It is also how lists and
maps work in XML. And gaining a simpler abstraction mechanism is just a
optional bonus (the includes in HOCON).
Who really cares what format the users/devs write the POM in? It doesn't have
to effect the Maven devs nearly as much as breaking the venerable POM XML
format would. Let the computers translate from one format to another. If
users want to write their POMs in HOCON or JSON (or even, ick YAML) does it
really matter as long as Maven can translate the POM into XML or the Maven
internal POM data structures? Its not like the internals of Maven are
dependent upon the POM being written in XML anyway (yea abstraction). The
IDEs/tools can still use the translated XML POMs.
It is much better than breaking the POM format which is the current proposal.
In my opinion the original proposal of using XML attributes is putting a
band-aid on a broken leg. Seems like supporting other POM formats is less work
for more win to me. Especially since working POM conversion implementations
already exist.
> You mention that 12 line SBT build - that’s great, but the moment you need to
> deviate from something normal - it can deviate quite quickly IMHO.
It doesn't have to.
Hunter
On Sunday, December 13, 2020, 5:01:33 PM PST, Mark Derricutt
<m...@talios.com> wrote:
Spoken just like someone who deals with people from high school in 2005.
I certainly care about reproducible builds - maybe not to the level of
some, but when working on projects that span multiple years, have multiple
deployments in different data centres for different customers, with
different versions deployed - that all need to be able to be maintained.
Being able to check out the version of the project that would deployed 2
years ago, and rebuild it with the exact same packages and get the same
build back - makes patching so much easier.
With a project made up on around 90 repos/artifacts ( non multi module - so
different releasee cadences across the board ), being able to check out
that old version - build it, reproduce the problem, patch one, maybe two
modules, and rebuild the platform for distribution with the minimum of
surface area change possible - for that patch release - and being able to
do that without major issue, in a short period of time - is a god send.
Sure, it MAY incur some upfront and ongoing costs - but the pay off, when
needed - is wonderful.
the level of frustration people have with Maven and its enthrallment with
XML at this point
I see a lot of folk grumble about XML, or mostly - the over use of elements
vs attributes, however, knowing that *everything* is an element (config
aside in a few plugins) is also a godsend for both tooling, and consistency.
I see far more people grumble about Gradle’s blend of DSL and Groovy
programming, and the dark majick that obscures where one changes from the
other ( I believe this is mitigated largely with the Kotlin DSL ).
You won’t have to look far to find someone, even those on the dev team who
don’t agree that the POM needs to change - but adoption, and usage is now
far far *beyond* merely just “Apache Maven” itself - so it’s not the
easiest thing to change.
You mention that 12 line SBT build - that’s great, but the moment you need
to deviate from something normal - it can deviate quite quickly IMHO.
From: Hunter C Payne <hunterpayne2...@yahoo.com.invalid>
<hunterpayne2...@yahoo.com.invalid>
Reply: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org> <dev@maven.apache.org>
Date: 14 December 2020 at 10:06:25 AM
To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org> <dev@maven.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Allow attributes shorthand in pom.xml
Hunter PS I've never even heard someone want a repeatable build. I have no
idea why that would even be that desirable.
