2008/12/18 Jason van Zyl
> On 18-Dec-08, at 3:02 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
>> Actually, I'm liking the Nixon name for these mixins
>>
> No chance.
>
So you're saying that chance is not a factor hmm sounds like a done deal
so!
LOL
On 18-Dec-08, at 3:07 PM, Shane Isbell wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, I'm liking the Nixon name for these mixins
Sure, why not? We can just call mavenized mixins, Nixons. Now I just
need a
big pen to start
On 18-Dec-08, at 3:02 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
Actually, I'm liking the Nixon name for these mixins
No chance.
2008/12/18 Ralph Goers
On Dec 18, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
It's not just about ignorig the ids. What about the distmgt info that
would be needed to deploy... Or
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, I'm liking the Nixon name for these mixins
Sure, why not? We can just call mavenized mixins, Nixons. Now I just need a
big pen to start blacking out sections of the spec.
Actually, I'm liking the Nixon name for these mixins
2008/12/18 Ralph Goers
>
> On Dec 18, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
>
> It's not just about ignorig the ids. What about the distmgt info that
>> would be needed to deploy... Or filtering or processing of it? I think it's
>> just better t
Gotta love Iphone autocorrect ;-)
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Connolly [mailto:stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:09 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Mixins (was Re: POM construction specification)
2008/12/18 Brian Fox
> filtering
On Dec 18, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
It's not just about ignorig the ids. What about the distmgt info
that would be needed to deploy... Or filtering or processing of it?
I think it's just better to keep processing of the Nixon separate.
Yes, I agree (except with the Nixon name).
On Dec 18, 2008, at 8:34 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 18-Dec-08, at 1:35 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
OK - I'm looking forward to seeing this. I understand the
programmatic aspect in the use case you describe with the IDE, but
not with something like the release capability. IIUC this would
all
The Nixon is not crooked, it doesn't need processing.
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/12/18 Brian Fox
>
> > filtering or processing of it? I think it's just better to keep
> processing
> > of the Nixon separate.
> >
> > --Brian
2008/12/18 Brian Fox
> filtering or processing of it? I think it's just better to keep processing
> of the Nixon separate.
>
> --Brian (mobile)
I don't know that you'll ever get to process the Nixon... the best you can
do is get him to do is resign, but his successor will probably pardon him so
It's not just about ignorig the ids. What about the distmgt info that
would be needed to deploy... Or filtering or processing of it? I think
it's just better to keep processing of the Nixon separate.
--Brian (mobile)
On Dec 18, 2008, at 10:15 AM, Ralph Goers
wrote:
On Dec 18, 2008, a
y, December 18, 2008 2:57 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: POM construction specification
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Ralph Goers
wrote:
On Dec 17, 2008, at 11:31 PM, Shane Isbell wrote:
And I've said multiple times that that isn't an adequate
definition.
Jason'
I think mixins are important, but I think in the short term trying to
focus on bring the spec up to what is known to be the behavior right
now is the focus. Once all those tests are done and the spec is
comprehensive with an appendix, has example, and where tests refer to
sections in the PO
On 18-Dec-08, at 1:35 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
OK - I'm looking forward to seeing this. I understand the
programmatic aspect in the use case you describe with the IDE, but
not with something like the release capability. IIUC this would
allow our organization to create a standard way of doing
On Dec 18, 2008, at 6:17 AM, Brian E. Fox wrote:
I mentioned an idea in my review that seems to have been overlooked. I
think a regular .pom in the repository shouldn't be able to be used
as a
"mixin". We should keep inheritance and mixins separate. The way I
would
do it is with a new packa
e.isb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:57 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: POM construction specification
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Ralph Goers
wrote:
>
> On Dec 17, 2008, at 11:31 PM, Shane Isbell wrote:
>
>
>>> And I've said multiple times
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Dec 17, 2008, at 11:31 PM, Shane Isbell wrote:
>
>
>>> And I've said multiple times that that isn't an adequate definition.
>>> Jason's post provided a better clue but still doesn't define it. Your
>>> definition is about like me telling
On Dec 17, 2008, at 11:31 PM, Shane Isbell wrote:
And I've said multiple times that that isn't an adequate definition.
Jason's post provided a better clue but still doesn't define it.
Your
definition is about like me telling you that I am heading a JCP
committee to
define a new Java entit
On Dec 17, 2008, at 11:15 PM, Shane Isbell wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Ralph Goers >wrote:
OK - I'm looking forward to seeing this. I understand the
programmatic
aspect in the use case you describe with the IDE, but not with
something
like the release capability. IIUC this wou
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Dec 17, 2008, at 10:57 PM, Shane Isbell wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Ralph Goers > >wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 17, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Shane Isbell wrote:
>>>
>>>
I guess I really have no clue what function
On Dec 17, 2008, at 10:57 PM, Shane Isbell wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Ralph Goers >wrote:
On Dec 17, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Shane Isbell wrote:
I guess I really have no clue what functionality a mixin is
supposed to
provide or how it would be retrieved without a version or
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> OK - I'm looking forward to seeing this. I understand the programmatic
> aspect in the use case you describe with the IDE, but not with something
> like the release capability. IIUC this would allow our organization to
> create a standard way
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Dec 17, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Shane Isbell wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I guess I really have no clue what functionality a mixin is supposed to
>>> provide or how it would be retrieved without a version or groupid. Is it
>>> being suggested they w
OK - I'm looking forward to seeing this. I understand the programmatic
aspect in the use case you describe with the IDE, but not with
something like the release capability. IIUC this would allow our
organization to create a standard way of doing something and then
somehow make it available
On 18-Dec-08, at 12:47 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Dec 17, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Shane Isbell wrote:
I guess I really have no clue what functionality a mixin is
supposed to
provide or how it would be retrieved without a version or groupid.
Is it
being suggested they would be stored in the
On Dec 17, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Shane Isbell wrote:
I guess I really have no clue what functionality a mixin is
supposed to
provide or how it would be retrieved without a version or groupid.
Is it
being suggested they would be stored in the repo without that? I'd
need a
lot of convincin
On 18/12/2008, at 1:51 PM, Shane Isbell wrote:
Comments below:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Brett Porter
wrote:
I fixed some typos - is it ok to regenerate the PDF? (mine comes out
slightly different on the Mac but it's all there AFAICT).
Just to add to what Brian and Ralph have al
(group/artifact/version ones should be skipped, but if
>> you're relocating everything in a group, it would make sense to do this at
>> the top of that group tree pom)
>> 3.5 I agree with Ralph here that Final is the wrong term. Private is more
>> appropriate.
>>
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Mine below.
OK. As I read 2.2 it basically only says the first definition wins. 2.1
> talks about a collection of models, but it doesn't say anything about
> dependency resolution, either directly or in its references to section 3. In
> other
Mine below.
On Dec 16, 2008, at 10:36 PM, Shane Isbell wrote:
Comments in line
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Ralph Goers >wrote:
On Dec 15, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
This is for the general population but I'm nudging you Ralph
because I
know that you want to make some c
at the top of that group tree pom)
3.5 I agree with Ralph here that Final is the wrong term. Private
is more appropriate.
I started this in the morning and didn't finish yet so sending what
I have.
-Original Message-
From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com]
Sent:
On 16-Dec-08, at 3:58 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Dec 15, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
This is for the general population but I'm nudging you Ralph
because I know that you want to make some changes for not requiring
the version in the parent element.
You should have warned me
Comments in line
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Dec 15, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> This is for the general population but I'm nudging you Ralph because I
>> know that you want to make some changes for not requiring the version in the
>> parent elemen
d this in the morning and didn't finish yet so sending what
I have.
-Original Message-
From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 3:59 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: POM construction specification
On Dec 15, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Jas
t
I have.
-Original Message-
From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 3:59 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: POM construction specification
On Dec 15, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
This is for the general population but
ecember 16, 2008 3:59 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: POM construction specification
On Dec 15, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> This is for the general population but I'm nudging you Ralph because
> I know that you want to make some changes for not requiring th
On Dec 15, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
This is for the general population but I'm nudging you Ralph because
I know that you want to make some changes for not requiring the
version in the parent element.
You should have warned me to have a glass of wine before attempting to
Thanks, I'll take a look. I'm interested in finally continuing the
work I started on a terse POM syntax earlier in the year and can start
by spec'ing out the interoperability needs.
On 16/12/2008, at 7:02 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
This is for the general population but I'm nudging you Ralph b
38 matches
Mail list logo
