On 01/08/2008, at 3:16 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
John Casey wrote:
To me, all of this points to a dire need to separate dependency
metadata from the POM that all of these derivative artifacts shares.
I could imagine this would also ease long-term interoperability of
different Maven versions with the repository. Imagine the day when
the POM evolves to the next model version which to my knowledge will
prevent any Maven 2.0.x from reading such a POM, failing the build.
Those projects that employ Maven 2.1+ will populate the repo with
these new POMs. It would be quite frustrating for a Maven 2.0.x user
that he cannot use the artifacts built by Maven 2.1+ as dependencies
just because the POM format has changed. If the artifact metadata is
separated from the POM, the POM could more freely evolve without the
risk of breaking consumers of a dependency as long as only the
artifact metadata model is compatible.
++1
I mentioned this is one of the challenges in changing the pom format
earlier this year (http://markmail.org/message/sbouq623fdlujmzt).
I also recall talking about this and my desire for a "repository
interchange format" when we met at JavaOne 2007 and Kenney raised the
question of classifiers. Now that the work on artifact is being picked
up it's a good time to see this added.
One POM, one main artifact, many derivatives is the right way to
describe the build, but there are plenty of cases to be more specific
in the information stored about each individual deployed artifact for
consumption purposes and to not need the tools to understand the whole
POM construction mechanism.
Cheers,
Brett
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
