Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIUC in the end it is Aether which collects
all the dependencies.
Aether is probably only interested in the <dependency>,
<dependencyManagement> and <parent>-tags.
What if we move the responsibility of the consumer-model to Aether as well?
Do we want this? What are the thoughts of the Aether-team?
Robert
Op Sun, 24 Nov 2013 22:31:54 +0100 schreef Hervé BOUTEMY
<herve.bout...@free.fr>:
Le dimanche 24 novembre 2013 10:26:13 Jason van Zyl a écrit :
On Nov 24, 2013, at 12:19 AM, Manfred Moser <manf...@mosabuam.com>
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 ..
I don't believe this requires separate documents to support this.
true, this does not require separate documents
but having separate documents helps separating concerns: building a
project vs
consuming its artifacts
and descriptor for consuption will be:
- a lot shorter than descriptor for building: not any plugin, for example
- build-agnostic
I'm pretty sure that separating descriptors will help us move forward
and even
better design things
Regards,
Hervé
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
