>Everything else you said below makes sense and is pretty much in line >with my experience, so I think it's best to defer this for a general >mixins proposal (if at all).
I'm pretty sure that a general ability to "include" or "mixin" some other piece of xml into the pom would come in handy, but this is a totally different topic and would need some thought around inheritance, deployment, etc. I agree with with Wayne's comments in the poll thread: " I am concerned though that providing mixins will send us further down the path of moving more and more pieces out of the pom which is not the right move IMO. If we add plugin+version in mixin v1, then people will want plugin+version+configuration in mixin v2, and in a short period of time we'll have re-invented <parent> and <pluginManagement> in non-pom files which really makes no sense at all." If we do mixins, we need to be careful that we don't open things up too much and make total messes out of the build. I could see this leading towards ant like craziness when things aren't linear (inheritance) or self contained.. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
