Re: Mixins (was Re: POM construction specification)
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!
Re: Mixins (was Re: POM construction specification)
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 blacking out sections of the spec. Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- People develop abstractions by generalizing from concrete examples. Every attempt to determine the correct abstraction on paper without actually developing a running system is doomed to failure. No one is that smart. A framework is a resuable design, so you develop it by looking at the things it is supposed to be a design of. The more examples you look at, the more general your framework will be. -- Ralph Johnson & Don Roberts, Patterns for Evolving Frameworks - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Mixins (was Re: POM construction specification)
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 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). I just used the coordinates as an example. Ralph - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- Our achievements speak for themselves. What we have to keep track of are our failures, discouragements and doubts. We tend to forget the past difficulties, the many false starts, and the painful groping. We see our past achievements as the end result of a clean forward thrust, and our present difficulties as signs of decline and decay. -- Eric Hoffer, Reflections on the Human Condition - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Mixins (was Re: POM construction specification)
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.
Re: Mixins (was Re: POM construction specification)
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 to keep processing of the Nixon separate. >> >> > Yes, I agree (except with the Nixon name). I just used the coordinates as > an example. > > > Ralph > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
RE: Mixins (was Re: POM construction specification)
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 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 you'll be unable to process him. ;-) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Mixins (was Re: POM construction specification)
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). I just used the coordinates as an example. Ralph - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Mixins (was Re: POM construction specification)
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 (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 > you'll be unable to process him. ;-) >
Re: Mixins (was Re: POM construction specification)
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 you'll be unable to process him. ;-)
Re: Mixins (was Re: POM construction specification)
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, 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 packaging type of mixin that would take another xml file like mixin.xml and deploy that to the repository, similar to a classified artifact. You have the mixin's pom and then the mixin itself. Only the mixin file can be used for inclusion in a element. This way the mixin can be abstract and only contain the appropriate fragments, yet have a separate pom with all the info needed to build and deploy said mixin to a remote repository. Mixins are useless if they can't be put into a repo. No, this wasn't overlooked. I hadn't thought of just using a new packaging type. I was thinking of a different file extension but using a new packaging type makes much more sense. However, I'm not sure having a separate file is really necessary. Just requiring the mixin to have a version, artifactId and groupId and having those be ignored when injecting the mixin should be suficient. And having the packaging type of mixin would also prevent the pom from being used in any other way - unless, of course, we want to allow mixins to be able to have a parent mixin. anyone wanna play a drinking game on the thread for each mixin mention? ;-) No thanks. Too early in the morning :-) Ralph - 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
Re: Mixins (was Re: POM construction specification)
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 POM then I think we can move on to new features and changes. It's too early right now. On 18-Dec-08, at 10:15 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: 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 packaging type of mixin that would take another xml file like mixin.xml and deploy that to the repository, similar to a classified artifact. You have the mixin's pom and then the mixin itself. Only the mixin file can be used for inclusion in a element. This way the mixin can be abstract and only contain the appropriate fragments, yet have a separate pom with all the info needed to build and deploy said mixin to a remote repository. Mixins are useless if they can't be put into a repo. No, this wasn't overlooked. I hadn't thought of just using a new packaging type. I was thinking of a different file extension but using a new packaging type makes much more sense. However, I'm not sure having a separate file is really necessary. Just requiring the mixin to have a version, artifactId and groupId and having those be ignored when injecting the mixin should be suficient. And having the packaging type of mixin would also prevent the pom from being used in any other way - unless, of course, we want to allow mixins to be able to have a parent mixin. anyone wanna play a drinking game on the thread for each mixin mention? ;-) No thanks. Too early in the morning :-) Ralph - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Mixins (was Re: POM construction specification)
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 packaging type of mixin that would take another xml file like mixin.xml and deploy that to the repository, similar to a classified artifact. You have the mixin's pom and then the mixin itself. Only the mixin file can be used for inclusion in a element. This way the mixin can be abstract and only contain the appropriate fragments, yet have a separate pom with all the info needed to build and deploy said mixin to a remote repository. Mixins are useless if they can't be put into a repo. No, this wasn't overlooked. I hadn't thought of just using a new packaging type. I was thinking of a different file extension but using a new packaging type makes much more sense. However, I'm not sure having a separate file is really necessary. Just requiring the mixin to have a version, artifactId and groupId and having those be ignored when injecting the mixin should be suficient. And having the packaging type of mixin would also prevent the pom from being used in any other way - unless, of course, we want to allow mixins to be able to have a parent mixin. anyone wanna play a drinking game on the thread for each mixin mention? ;-) No thanks. Too early in the morning :-) Ralph - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
