Re: Comments property on License
AFAIK, comments is missing from the XSD and should be present. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/ Jeffrey Bonevich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 30/11/2003 01:41:44 PM: I am working on the POM editor for mevenide's Eclipse plugin. Hoping someone in the know could answer this question: The License class has properties: name, distribution, url, and comments. Comments is not discussed in the reference docs, nor is it in the current version of the XSD for maven's project.xml file. So is comment a deprecated property or just an oversight of XSD and ref docs? jeff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Comments property on License
Enter 'em in Jira, that's the easiest way to keep track. My take on most of the stuff below is that it is mostly a by product of extending BaseObject, and the properties, though valid maybe meaningless. We should make sure the xsd documents the meaningful stuff only. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/ Jeffrey Bonevich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/12/2003 12:14:07 PM: Cool. There seems to be a pattern of the base POM classes extending BaseObject, which has name and id properties, but not necessarily declaring same in XSD or docs. Which is better to follow - code, XSD, docs (my gut sez go with the code)? Here are the inconsistencies I find: *Organization - has name, no id *Repository - no name or id *Branch - adding name and id means it == Version, but maybe it should? *MailingList - has name, no id *Contributor - has name, no id; adding id means == Developer *License - has name, no id *Dependency - has id, no name *Build - neither *Report - neither Does not necessarily make sense that they all should, nor should code necessarily be directly reflected in XSD. But for some (Organization, Branch, Contributor, License, Dependency?) it makes sense??? Do you want the comments issue entered in JIRA? jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AFAIK, comments is missing from the XSD and should be present. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/ Jeffrey Bonevich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 30/11/2003 01:41:44 PM: I am working on the POM editor for mevenide's Eclipse plugin. Hoping someone in the know could answer this question: The License class has properties: name, distribution, url, and comments. Comments is not discussed in the reference docs, nor is it in the current version of the XSD for maven's project.xml file. So is comment a deprecated property or just an oversight of XSD and ref docs? jeff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Comments property on License
done [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Enter 'em in Jira, that's the easiest way to keep track. My take on most of the stuff below is that it is mostly a by product of extending BaseObject, and the properties, though valid maybe meaningless. We should make sure the xsd documents the meaningful stuff only. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/ Jeffrey Bonevich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/12/2003 12:14:07 PM: Cool. There seems to be a pattern of the base POM classes extending BaseObject, which has name and id properties, but not necessarily declaring same in XSD or docs. Which is better to follow - code, XSD, docs (my gut sez go with the code)? Here are the inconsistencies I find: *Organization - has name, no id *Repository - no name or id *Branch - adding name and id means it == Version, but maybe it should? *MailingList - has name, no id *Contributor - has name, no id; adding id means == Developer *License - has name, no id *Dependency - has id, no name *Build - neither *Report - neither Does not necessarily make sense that they all should, nor should code necessarily be directly reflected in XSD. But for some (Organization, Branch, Contributor, License, Dependency?) it makes sense??? Do you want the comments issue entered in JIRA? jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AFAIK, comments is missing from the XSD and should be present. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/ Jeffrey Bonevich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 30/11/2003 01:41:44 PM: I am working on the POM editor for mevenide's Eclipse plugin. Hoping someone in the know could answer this question: The License class has properties: name, distribution, url, and comments. Comments is not discussed in the reference docs, nor is it in the current version of the XSD for maven's project.xml file. So is comment a deprecated property or just an oversight of XSD and ref docs? jeff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Comments property on License
I am working on the POM editor for mevenide's Eclipse plugin. Hoping someone in the know could answer this question: The License class has properties: name, distribution, url, and comments. Comments is not discussed in the reference docs, nor is it in the current version of the XSD for maven's project.xml file. So is comment a deprecated property or just an oversight of XSD and ref docs? jeff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
