> On Sunday, 24 November 2013, Manfred Moser wrote: > >> >> > 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> >> >> > How is that any different from having a modelVersion 5.0.0? (Other than > not > giving the benefit of a schema change)
It probably isnt different ;-) manfred --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
