The way I read 3.4 the parent does not win. The child declaration
simply overrides the parent. Consider project developers. If specified
in a child then only those developers participate in this subproject.
developers specified in the parent are ignored. Whether it makes sense
to do it that way is a different question.
Ralph
On Dec 16, 2008, at 8:32 PM, Brian E. Fox wrote:
"The only difference between a parent project and a mixin is that
the mixin is
abstract (not a complete model)."
Is that really true? A Mixin should be deployed to the repository,
which essentially means it needs to be complete enough to id and
thus a complete model. It should be deployed as a classified
artifact though to avoid mixing in the instructions for building/
deploying from those that are intended to be mixed in. (ie the
mixin's pom is separate)
3.1: what about multiple parents? I assume it's the first one, but
should be explicit in the spec.
3.2: section is blank but contentious based on current behavior and
the in-ability to use properties and inheritance together.
3.3: I don't understand this statement. A child always overrides the
parent or joins with it. Are you saying that the parent wins here?
Also pluginRepositories is going away soon. In general why can't the
things listed here be extended?
3.4 shouldn't project.distMgt.relocation be inherited if the
relocation lists the group? (group/artifact/version ones should be
skipped, but if you're relocating everything in a group, it would
make sense to do this at the top of that group tree pom)
3.5 I agree with Ralph here that Final is the wrong term. Private is
more appropriate.
I started this in the morning and didn't finish yet so sending what
I have.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 3:59 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: POM construction specification
On Dec 15, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
This is for the general population but I'm nudging you Ralph because
I know that you want to make some changes for not requiring the
version in the parent element.
You should have warned me to have a glass of wine before attempting to
read all these math notations. :-) Or put a link to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_mathematical_symbols
for those of use who haven't had a math class in the last 25 years.
The funny thing is, I have a B.S. in Physics. Man it has been a long
time. :-(
Comments:
1.1 Mentions there are 465 model properties. An appendix should list
them. Specifically, I'd like to see "provides" listed along with the
project's groupId, artifactId and version and "requires" in the
dependency declaration - or whatever other way that kind of metadata
will be added.
2.1 & 2.2 Is all this simply stating that the closest definition wins
and when two or more are equally close then the first one wins?
2.4 The only "definition" of mixin is "The only difference between a
parent pro ject and a mixin is that the mixin is
abstract (not a complete model)". That sure leaves a lot to the
imagination. And what exactly makes a model "incomplete"? Isn't a pom
with just a dependencyManagement complete? I also found myself
wondering that even though it might be possible to support extending
multiple parents, should we? I could see allowing only one parent but
multiple mixins.
3.1 Even though may be obvious, it should explicitly state that
artifactId is always required.
3.4 Why can't the groupId be inherited from its parent (or at least be
set from project.parent.groupIdt)?
3.4 The footnote says the artifactId can be inherited from the parent.
That makes no sense to me. Every pom should represent a unique
artifact or at least a unique pom.
3.5 I found the statement This will mark the container as final, thus
preventing inheritance:" as misleading. In java terms this would mean
a child pom attempting to define the same plugin would fail. The
setting of "inherited" to false in the sample indicates to me the
opposite, the plugin definition in the parent is invisible to the
child. Here is a question though. If A overrides a plugin defined in
the super pom and has inherited true, then B extends A and overrides
the plugin and sets inherited to false, what will C which extends from
B get? It should see the definition in A. Or does this whole section
mean that the plugin definition in B inherits nothing from A?
3.8 "the element will be inherited." Unless the parent definition has
<inherited>false</inherited> ?
I don't see anything in here about being able to locate a parent
without having to know its version. Within the scope of the purpose of
this document it may not be relevant, but at the very least somewhere
in section 3 it should state that if a parent is specified than which
elements are required.
I hope this was the kind of feedback you were looking for.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
