On 8 Aug 07, at 1:46 AM 8 Aug 07, Shane Isbell wrote:
I'll tell them it works ;)
Just note, I'm not trying to rain on your parade. I just think that a
new API we come up with will be able to support any end format, I
just don't see the benefit of RDF. If we're going to use something
unreadable we might as well just use a binary index :-)
I think we can get the artifact api sorted out quickly and it would
be very nice to align everything back to something common and I agree
it needs to be robust and be flawless. I realize why you wanted/had
to use something else but in the long I think it will be confusing
for users. The 4 groups I know using NMaven are doing both Java
and .net at the same time. The POM is fundamental to Maven.
On 8/7/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8 Aug 07, at 12:40 AM 8 Aug 07, Shane Isbell wrote:
Some background info on the repository changes:
http://www.jroller.com/random7/entry/
apache_nmaven_repository_structure_and
I wouldn't go veering off too far from the way Java Maven works as I
won't be too keen on integrating this back into the top-level project
being entirely different then the existing system. Using an entirely
different resolution mechanism and a different local repository
format creating a dichotomy between Maven and NMaven.
What do you tell people when they are accustom to Maven and then
start using NMaven and it works completely differently?
Shane
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder and PMC Chair, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder and PMC Chair, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
