On Dec 29, 2009, at 6:22 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: > I think Maven POMs should be like the rules governing HTML and CSS > versions. Ignore tags and attributes you don't know and interpret what > you can. Allow graceful degration of behavior so those who want to > publish 4.1 POMs can still be used with 4.0 readers.
"Graceful degradation" doesn't work. 4.0 is strict. Maven 2.x won't handle anything undefined. The only reasonable solution is that the new project descriptor won't be a pom.xml. pom.xml will always be reserved for a 2.x compatible POM. The new project descriptor should allow for enhancement. One of the things we should discuss and agree on is how that will work. There is an advantage to having a schema for validation, but logical extension points need to be allowed. This would also be a great time to make the new descriptor less verbose. Ralph > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Arnaud HERITIER <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> What I recall discussing with Brian at ApacheCon was having a new project >>> descriptor but making sure that when projects are installed or deployed a >>> pom compatible with the current format would also be deployed along with the >>> new descriptor. If the new project descriptor allows extension then this >>> could continue to work as things change. >>> >>> >>> Yah, I think we've been beating this around for a while... in my mind, it's >>> still a unified repository metadata format that the POM translates to (and a >>> parallel 4.0.0 POM / maven-metadata for old clients). >>> >>> It seems like that and the POM and the deprecations can be the single focus >>> for 3.1... we just need to ship "Snow Maven" at this point so we can move on >>> to new things. >>> >>> >>> >> Do we have in 3.0 a mechanism to have a constraint when we develop a plugin >> to say that it requires a minimal version of POM. >> Let's imagine we add a new data in the pom in 4.1.0 and a plugin needs to >> use them, thus maven shouldn't automatically check when it load a plugin >> that it is compatible with the POM version. >> >> Another question about 3.0, did we reintroduce // dowloads ? I think it >> wasn't here in the last alpha. >> >> Arnaud >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
