On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Igor Fedorenko <i...@ifedorenko.com>wrote:
> The way I see it, what is deployed describes how the artifact needs to > be consumed. This is artifact's "public API", if you will, it will be > consumed by wide range of tools that resolve dependencies from Maven > repositories and descriptor format should be very stable. Mostly likely > we have no choice but use (a subset of) the current 4.0.0 model version. > > How the artifact is produced, on the other hand, is artifact's > implementation detail. It is perfectly reasonable for a project to > require minimal version of Maven, for example. Or use completely > different format, not related to pom at all. > > 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. > +1. It means we can more easily make changes to the production side, where most features are desired, without worrying about the impacts on consumption via older tools. That is to say specifically that a team can decide to move to a new version of Maven and adjust their pom accordingly without affecting downstream users. I think this is the very reason we are still locked on 4.0.0 all these years later. Obviously things like dependency resolution and properties would need to be in the consumer side.
