On 18/12/2008, at 1:51 PM, Shane Isbell wrote:
Comments below:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
wrote:
I fixed some typos - is it ok to regenerate the PDF? (mine comes out
slightly different on the Mac but it's all there AFAICT).
Just to add to what Brian and Ralph have already said:
3.1 - I think we have to knock multiple inheritance out at this
stage, even
if it is noted as a possibility for general model building, I don't
think
it's appropriate for the Maven rules.
I know we are playing with definitions here; but if someone chooses to
define a complete pom as a mixin, then it's the same as multiple
inheritance.
Exactly :) I think that makes a separate parent unnecessary, and
possibly confusing (like which group/version to inherit).
3.2 - We should just define this by the current behaviour IMO, then
look at
how we fix it going forward (See below on versioning)
3.3 - I had the same confusion as Brian. Why are collections not
joined?
I'm just defining current behavior in regards to these collections.
If the
spec doesn't match current behavior, then we need to modify the spec.
Yep, I think I just got a bit confused... I thought 3.2 was waiting
for a "new" definition, not the current one.
2.2 - I think map handling needs to be defined for the same reason
so that
duplicate keys can be merged
I need more information about what you are thinking here.
Am wondering how this is handled:
<configuration>
<systemProperties>
<property>
<key>key1</key>
<value>value1</value>
</property>
<property>
<key>key1</key>
<value>value2</value>
</property>
</systemProperties>
</configuration>
Will this be represented as a collection and all kept, with the
eventual translation back to a map sorting out the key handling?
Thanks,
Brett
--
Brett Porter
br...@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
