Using attributes in place of XML elements is not revolutionary. I don't speak here about writting POMs in groovy !
This is just about better use of XML, it requires only a "tweak" of the Xpp3Parser to handle attributes the same way it handles nested elements, and maybe to change the install/deploy to convert the POM to "classic" element-based format. Nico. 2008/2/10, Tim O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Nicolas, > > I agree that POM verbosity is a problem, but I also think that a lot > of people on this list are not going to want to introduce > revolutionary changes to POM structure without being convinced (as we > are) that it is a problem. > > The first step to this would be to add the ability to plugin in > another parser implementation. Abstract both the pom and settings > parsing from the Xpp3 stuff generated by modello, and make the Xpp3 > parsers the default implementation. At that point, it would be > easier to generate alternative parsers or preprocessors (like what > Redmond did with YAML). What can't change is the infoset of the > current POM, the current POM structure can't change because of > backwards compatibility, the POM that is generated in a repository > cannot change, but the format that people use to manage a project. > That should be pluggable and customizable, but any change introduced > can't break the current model. > > But, I'm not optimisitc it is going to happen unless someone just does > it and writes a ranting blog entry about it. > > Tim O'Brien > > On Feb 10, 2008, at 3:34 AM, nicolas de loof wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > Maven detractors blam maven POM.xml to become huge XML files even for > > simple tasks. > > Considering the comparison with ant, the latest use XML attributes > > an few > > XML elements, making tasks declaration consise. > > > > Could we introduce a new XML schema (for maven 2.1) to support > > simple types > > elements as attributes, maybe using namespaces : > > > > > > <project> > > <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion> > > > > <groupId>org.codehaus.mojo</groupId> > > <artifactId>my-project</artifactId> > > <version>1.0</version> > > </project> > > > > ... could be written : > > > > <project modelVersion="4.0.0" > > groupId="org.codehaus.mojo" artifactId="my-project" > > version="1.0"> > > </project> > > > > We could use namespaces to avoid colision in maven schemas, and > > support a mix of elements and attributs : > > > > > > > > <project m2:groupId="org.codehaus.mojo" m2:artifactId="my-project" > > m2:version="1.0"> > > <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion> > > </project> > > > > > > > > The previous examples are just to fix the principle. Declaring > > dependencies and plugins configuration could become really consice and > > enhance readability. > > > > > > > > Nico. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
