On Dec 17, 2008, at 10:57 PM, Shane Isbell wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com
>wrote:
On Dec 17, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Shane Isbell wrote:
I guess I really have no clue what functionality a mixin is
supposed to
provide or how it would be retrieved without a version or
groupid. Is it
being suggested they would be stored in the repo without that?
I'd need a
lot of convincing before I could buy off on that.
That's more of a specific case of what we would need to resolve a
mixin
remotely. Someone may also choose to add mixins programmatically
or have
them taken from the file system. Neither of these cases would
require a
version or groupId. Narrowing the definition of a mixin for one
specific
case, limits its power.
You've totally lost me, primarily because you've still not defined
what a
mixin is.
I've defined mixin within the spec and multiple times in this
thread: a
mixin is an abstract model, meaning it is not required to have all the
required elements of a full pom.
And I've said multiple times that that isn't an adequate definition.
Jason's post provided a better clue but still doesn't define it. Your
definition is about like me telling you that I am heading a JCP
committee to define a new Java entity called mixin and in it you will
be able to use all the existing java grammar but I tell you nothing
more than that. Would you have a clue how that is useful?
I'm also confused as to whether this document is supposed to
document Maven
as it currently is or with some set of enhancements. I've seen
answers that
imply that right now it should just document what currently exists.
The model-builder supports the capability to add mixins (as defined
above).
We still need to spec out how we want to handle things like resolving.
I assume you mean the model-builder for 3.0? I guess I'll have to look
at the code to figure out what is actually going on.
In the long run I'm probably going to be in favor of only allowing
single
inheritance from a parent model. I might be inclined to agree with
multiple
mixins if they were actually defined.
They are defined. See above.
Not in any meaningful way. See above.
Adding mixins programatically offhand seems like a horrible idea
but that
is probably because I'm sure I don't know what you have in mind.
In short, I would recommend either removing mention of mixins from
the
document or actually documenting them.
It is documented.
<sigh>
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
