Fair comment. Not less annoying. It's less size (not bytes, but
actual typing... and to Brett's point, in Eclipse, I would be typing
in a form, not the raw pom.xml file, so it'd be the same regardless of
how it's represented in the pom.
Having said that, the ?params annoy me too, but I was responding to
the argument that it was non-deterministic to reverse-engineer. That
was simply untrue. And there might be less annoying approaches.
Frankly, I'm just as happy with
groupId:artifactId:packaging:version:scope. You could even have a
collapse-order, so you can make terser expressions (which I think is
the case now). I just want a clean, easy to human-read, not annoying
to type approach, ideally that only takes one line. So I can read
large batches of them in one glance, instead of having to scroll of
the screen.
Are these dealbreakers? No. But they're slightly less annoying to me
than XML.
Christian.
P.S. Example of the above. Really really easy to read. Easy to sort,
<project>
<modelVersion>5.0.0</modelVersion>
<parent id="my.project:my-parent:1.5" />
<artifact id=":my-artifact-id:" /> <!-- inherits null entries
from parent -->
<packaging>war</packaging>
<dependencies>
<dependency id="org.springframework:spring-beans:2.5" />
<dependency id="org.springframework:spring-something-other:
2.5" />
<dependency id="net.blah:blah-framework:3.3" />
<dependency id="my.project:my-project-flash-application:swf:
1.5" />
<dependency id="org.easymock:easymock::2.4:test" /> <!-- jar
is default -->
</dependencies>
</project>
On 27-May-09, at 23:35 , Brian Fox wrote:
That's less annoying than the current format? Not to me that's for
sure.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Christian Edward Gruber <
christianedwardgru...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not sure how that pans out.
mvn://net.israfil.foundation/foundation-container/1.1?
optional&packaging=pom&scope=test
Done.
And there's no issue with reverse engineering. The "host" is the
groupid,
the first folder is the artifact, the last item is the version, and
the
supplemental attributes are uri parameters. (maybe there's a terser
wya to
do that, but it's the best I can think of off-hand.) There's nothing
ambiguous there, is there? It's also extensible.
cheers,
Christian.
On 27-May-09, at 22:24 , Brian Fox wrote:
The problem with this is two-fold actually,
The url representation currently doesn't encapsulate the other
parts of
the
dependency declaration like optional or scope. Further, it is
difficult to
deterministically reverse a url like that back to the GAV
components... we
struggle with this often in Nexus when people have unusual
artifact or
group
ids that make it hard for example to separate the group from the
artifact,
or the version from the classifier.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Jorg Heymans
<jorg.heym...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Christian Edward Gruber
<christianedwardgru...@gmail.com> wrote:
Anyway, I'm +1 on this. It is clear, unambiguous, and terse.
Those
work
for me.
My thoughts exactly !
Jorg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Christian Edward Gruber
e-mail: christianedwardgru...@gmail.com
weblog: http://www.geekinasuit.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Christian Edward Gruber
e-mail: christianedwardgru...@gmail.com
weblog: http://www.geekinasuit.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
