> By separating "consumption" and "production" metadata formats, we'll be > able to evolve production format more aggressively. For example, it > would be nice to have Tycho-specific configuration markup inside <build> > section. This is not currently possible because all poms must be > compatible with the same model.
I like the idea of consumptions specifics. It would be great if we could agree/define some sort of standard on how to declare suitability for artifacts for certain deployment scenarios .. e.g. it is jar suitable for Java 6, 7, 8, 9 or what, what about running on Android, or on some embedded Java version profile. I dont believe that the previous approaches of using classifiers is just not powerful enough. And I also agree that we should potentially just stick to the existing format. E.g. nothing stops us from declaring a standard for e.g. for a bunch of properties like <properties> <runtime.android>true</runtime.android> <runtime.java6>true</runtime.java6> </properties> or <properties> <runtime.android>false</runtime.android> <runtime.java6>false</runtime.java6> <runtime.java7>true</runtime.java7> </properties> Of course we should put more thought into this but declaring a standard sooner rather than later could help a lot with the oncoming wave of libraries that will not work for Java 6 anymore and others going forward with e.g. Java 8 only and so on. Manfred --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
