sorry on the wrapping, an artifact of the convoluted way I had to move it around to get gmail to actually send it
1) it was related to custom in that it is basically alluding to a proposel to have a structured mechanism of inserting other models into the pom and having maven be able discover the implementing model dependency and perhaps swizzle it all into objects automagically...what jason was talking about in regards to his usage of the custom tag (here and on irc) made me think that this would be a pretty natural extension of it...could be a new element though 2) sorry, overrode <modules> there...so no, completely different type of module, more like plugin.. again, sorry for the wrapping, I ended up having to cut and paste it over to my windows box since my mac kept not being able to resolve google mail..very odd :) jesse On 4/1/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jesse, > > You've lost me a bit with this (and with the wrapping I found it really > hard to read :) > > 1) is this related to the custom discussion or is this just a new > element you'd like to add (if the latter, I think it deserves a new > thread) > > 2) is this related to the current <modules> tag, or something different? > > Thanks, > Brett > > Jesse McConnell wrote: > > I was thinking about this a bit.. > > > > what about adding something like > > > > <modules> > > <module> > > <source> > > <artifactId>runtime-model</artifactId> > > <groupId>org.codehaus.mojo.plugin</groupId> > > <version>1.0-SNAPSHOT</version> > > </source> > > <model> > > <runtimes> > > <runtime> > > .... > > </runtime> > > </runtimes> > > </model> > > </module> > > </modules> > > > > where we can logically embed the particular types of extensions to the > pom > > that > > we want. > > > > I was thinking about picking up my runtime work and furthering the idea > of > > usin > > g it as a program launching framework and it would be pretty spiffy if > we > > could > > embed arbitary chunks into the pom that maven facilitates the passing of > the > > <cu > > stom> tag into another modello model...the <source> would point to the > place > > tha > > t the model could be pulled from and the <model> the container element > for > > the a > > ctual model that would be created. > > > > maybe something like this is already slated for 2.1, haven't checked up > on > > it, b > > ut I rather like the jist of it. > > > > Why not just do it as a plugin? > > > > well, for the runtime launching my thought was that a project that > wanted to > > be > > able to be started from some general wrapper script called mvnrun could > > declare > > the specifics in the runtime model for things like linkage of some id to > a > > main > > method in the program. The stuff could be in the repository and an > indexing > > pro > > cess could exist that could comb through all the poms in the local repo > and > > inde > > x the id's so > > > > mvnrun squirrel > > > > would know to start up the squirrel program. And if a more global index > > existed > > then it would know that it needed to go hit ibibilo and grab the root > > squirrel > > program and all of the dependencies, kinda making a java equivalent to > > apt-get.. > > And I don't see that kinda functionality being the purpose of a maven > > plugin, > > but I see it a natural extension for the maven pom since the pom > metadata > > alread > > y tracks all of the dependencies needed to run. Could be very nice to > just > > add > > in a simple module to the pom that enabled this sort of behavior. > > > > anyway, that is my use case... > > > > jesse > > > > > > On 3/31/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> +1. Strict parsing is only on for projects you build, its off for poms > >> in the repository. > >> > >> This should be a change on trunk only, and the model version should be > >> changed to 4.1.0, right? We need to now start looking into dealing with > >> projects differently based on the model version. > >> > >> Given that this is a model change - why not add categories and tags to > >> the POM itself? > >> > >> - Brett > >> > >> Jason van Zyl wrote: > >>> John Casey wrote: > >>>> so, how do you gain access to the custom section? Would you have to > >>>> re-parse the whole pom? Also, would <custom/> be subject to any sort > >>>> of inheritance, or would it simply be invisible to the project > builder? > >>> After some more chatting in IRC I think that if a <custom/> element > was > >>> added to the MDO then the strict parsing can be left on. Essentially > the > >>> <custom/> element would be processed like a plug-in configuration. > That > >>> would probably make more sense and be safer. > >>> > >>>> -john > >>>> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > jesse mcconnell > > jesseDOTmcconnellATgmailDOTcom > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- jesse mcconnell jesseDOTmcconnellATgmailDOTcom
