On 2009-09-04, at 10:59 PM, Christian Edward Gruber wrote:
So I agree that it is a valid concern, and there needs to be a
canonical format (which will probably be XML) which all artifacts
are saved as - but in my source tree, it should be entirely possible
to have an alternate way to specify, since often I've found that XML-
hatred is a barrier to Maven adoption in some firms.
I have not found this to be a concern. There's lots of other things
that are barrier but the XML has honestly never come up in any
conversations I've had.
You should always be able to get the pom.xml... help:canonical-pom
would be a decent way to quickly do it, and artifacts should be
published that way - but a Project is an object, and alternate
serializations shouldn't be a problem.
Therein lies the problem, the only real canonical form is the object
model. With 3 XML formats which one is the canonical format? The first
one?
I would, also as an evangelist and implementor of build systems in
companies, encourage that a company standardize on a format, but if
that company wants to use YAML, or some other terser, more human
readable format for the pom, then I'm good with that.
I'm not. Again this falls into my category of "if you want it that
way, you support it." A company can standardize on whatever it wants,
but I'm not going to hide the real cost of that. We may ultimately
decide it's not worth it having another XML format. There are a lot
more things in 3.0 that interest me then another XML format.
I used to feel more like you, Brian, but for the sheer intensity of
hatred of XML out there (as a format for human-maintained source).
Again, I've not witnessed any XML hatred or that being a justification
by a reasonable person not to use Maven.
The problem you're describing about one project using one and
another using a different one - that's no different than one project
deciding to use a different set of integration test plugins (invoker
vs. shitty) and confusing the noobs. The bottom line is that you're
not going to be able to constraint people from going for the "new
thing" and messing up the inexperienced, so providing sane defaults
with lots of room to customize is the best option, in my view.
Christian.
On Sep 4, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
Just my 2 cents as a Maven evangelist in a big private company.
Even if
Maven is around for years now, basic endusers just start to get
accustomed to pom.xml and Maven philosophy (really! people are far
slowest to change than in OpenSource project team).
Please, please don't mess everything. Small additions are fine,
but I think a new format is a bad idea even if it is optional. One
of advantage of Maven is standardization across all our projects.
If there are several format allowed, some projects will start
using new one when others are still using the former and it will
lead to a total mess.
That's my main concern as well to be honest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus
http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E
----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
