Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
SortMojo! Now thats the best idea I've heard yet. Eric On 12/19/05, Rinku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am +1 for the existing format. Supporting more would be a maintenance > add-on. > > The only thing I can suggest is that may be certain sections could be > factored out (something like profiles.xml) into separate files (optional) > and merged at build time before the pom is processed. And I think this > could > be driven by the fact - what are frequently 'touched' sections after an > 'initial' POM has been setup for a project. > > For POMs with long list of dependencies, would it be possible to sort > the dependencies(or other elements) in an alphabetical order to ensure > they > can be located easily? may be we could whip up a SortMojo ;-) .. > just thinking out loud! > > cheers, > Rahul > > > - Original Message - > From: "Matt Raible" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Maven Users List" > Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 2:06 PM > Subject: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler? > > > After seeing what the Spring Developers have done to simplify Spring > context files, I can't help but think the same thing is possible for > Maven 2's pom.xml. Is it possible to add namespaces and make > something like the following possible? > > Before: > > > springframework > spring > 1.2.6 > > > After: > > > > Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? > > version="1.2.6"/> > > Allowing 1 line instead of 5-6 lines per dependency would allow me to > cut my dependencies listing from 140 lines of XML to 37 lines. When > the Spring guys allows a couple of elements as attributes ( and > ) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. > > Here's an example of my simplified version: > > > scope="test"/> > version="2.0"/> > version="1.0.4"/> > version="1.0" scope="runtime"> > > > > > version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> > version="3.0.5"> > > > > > version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> > scope="test"/> > scope="test"/> > scope="test"/> > scope="test"> > > > > > > version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> > version="2.4" scope="provided"/> > version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> > artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" scope="runtime"/> > version="1.2.6"/> > version="1.2.6" scope="test"> > > > > > > > > Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide some > motivation. ;-) > > > > > > > Matt > > - > 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: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
I agree. Thank you for your work and effort in the other areas - bug fixes and functionality. Michael -Original Message- From: Brian E. Fox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 11:52 AM To: Maven Users List Subject: RE: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler? "why not keep both camps happy? :) " I would personally have them spend time on bugs fixes and new functional features than rewrite something that is a matter of taste. -Original Message- From: Arik Kfir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 7:30 AM To: Maven Users List Subject: Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler? We all agree that it is really a matter of taste. That's precisely why Maven *should* support another theme. I definitly agree that whether attributes are more readable or not is arguable (at best) - but why not keep both camps happy? :) (if the costs are reasonable of course) On 12/17/05, Alexandre Poitras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A simple XSLT stylesheet would do the job there. You don't need maven > to support this format. > > On 12/17/05, Thomas Van de Velde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -1 > > > > I agree with Brett. This is a matter of taste. My taste goes > > towards the existing solution. Writing everything on a single line > > may even become less readable. Have you ever tried to read an > > Eclipse .classpath file? You can hardly say that's more readeable. > > I also think that mixing attributes with elements is in this case a bad > > idea and would hurt overall consistency. > > > > On 12/17/05, Srepfler Srgjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >If your sole concern is the number of lines one must type, it is > > > >certainly an option to have meta-pom.xml be in the format you > > > >find most comfortable, then xslt it into the "more verbose" m2 pom.xml. > > > > > > > >This argument of attributes versus elements has existed since the > > > >dawn of [xml] time. I am not trying to argue one way or the > > > >other, but since > > > >m1 pom used the "more verbose" syntax, it eases the transition. > > > > > > > > My USD$0.02, > > > > -- /v\atthew > > > > > > > >- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In fact people should develop a plugin that maps the simplified > > > and verbose schemas on the fly :) The advantage of using > > > namespaces is that you can create a your tag and map it to the > > > verbose tag from the official pom. > > > That's the way I've seen the spring guys use it for now but the > > > advantage that I see is that in could be much easier to extend the > > > pom and it would be more "type safe" > > > > > > My 0.02MKD > > > > > > -- > > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Alexandre Poitras > Québec, Canada > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Regards, _ Arik Kfir[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: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
I am +1 for the existing format. Supporting more would be a maintenance add-on. The only thing I can suggest is that may be certain sections could be factored out (something like profiles.xml) into separate files (optional) and merged at build time before the pom is processed. And I think this could be driven by the fact - what are frequently 'touched' sections after an 'initial' POM has been setup for a project. For POMs with long list of dependencies, would it be possible to sort the dependencies(or other elements) in an alphabetical order to ensure they can be located easily? may be we could whip up a SortMojo ;-) .. just thinking out loud! cheers, Rahul - Original Message - From: "Matt Raible" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Maven Users List" Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 2:06 PM Subject: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler? After seeing what the Spring Developers have done to simplify Spring context files, I can't help but think the same thing is possible for Maven 2's pom.xml. Is it possible to add namespaces and make something like the following possible? Before: springframework spring 1.2.6 After: Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? version="1.2.6"/> Allowing 1 line instead of 5-6 lines per dependency would allow me to cut my dependencies listing from 140 lines of XML to 37 lines. When the Spring guys allows a couple of elements as attributes ( and ) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. Here's an example of my simplified version: scope="test"/> version="2.0"/> version="3.0.5"> version="1.2.6"/> Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide some motivation. ;-) Matt - 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: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
You just need a simple xslt transformation. Just call xalan from mvn.bat. No need for maven to support two styles Everyone complain about those xml configuration files but always forget about the "good side" of using xml. Sicken me On 12/18/05, Srepfler Srgjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Like I said there is nothing that **could** prevent people from doing a > 1-1 mapper between a simple-style to complex-style, all that it's > important is that there is 1 format in the repositories. If this could > help speed up the process of *writing* the code I say it might be welcome. > One point though, having seen the humongous xsd for the pom, it's not at > all trivial task and it could be more trouble then worth (then again, it > could be tackled in many ways, one namespace for a simplified pom, > separate namespaces for different things/different plugins). All in all, > it *could* be done, I don't know if it *should* be done. > The things we end users and you developers should weigh in are these: > If you simplify the pom perhaps you could gain more users. > If you develop this namespace approach, we'd have to tech the parsers > how to deal with these new schemas, we'd have to write new schemas, we'd > have a bunch of bugs which would lead to bad user experience and > probably a drop in early adopters (like me). > I'd go with the more gradual approach, open the infrastructure for use > cases where the pom is a flexible, extensible, syntacticly open model. > Build the infrastructure and enforce community guidelines for public > repositories. > That would be what I'd do. > > Srgjan Srepfler > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Alexandre Poitras Québec, Canada - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
Like I said there is nothing that **could** prevent people from doing a 1-1 mapper between a simple-style to complex-style, all that it's important is that there is 1 format in the repositories. If this could help speed up the process of *writing* the code I say it might be welcome. One point though, having seen the humongous xsd for the pom, it's not at all trivial task and it could be more trouble then worth (then again, it could be tackled in many ways, one namespace for a simplified pom, separate namespaces for different things/different plugins). All in all, it *could* be done, I don't know if it *should* be done. The things we end users and you developers should weigh in are these: If you simplify the pom perhaps you could gain more users. If you develop this namespace approach, we'd have to tech the parsers how to deal with these new schemas, we'd have to write new schemas, we'd have a bunch of bugs which would lead to bad user experience and probably a drop in early adopters (like me). I'd go with the more gradual approach, open the infrastructure for use cases where the pom is a flexible, extensible, syntacticly open model. Build the infrastructure and enforce community guidelines for public repositories. That would be what I'd do. Srgjan Srepfler - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
Martijn Dashorst wrote: of the repetition in the POM 4.0. It is unreadable due to the repetition of dependencies, plugin management etc. That's a structural question and *completely* unrelated to the question, how the POM looks syntactically. I don't agree with the camp that it is just a matter of taste. If it were, why is Spring adding the simplified support to their configuration file? Because their taste has changed? :-) Jochen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
+1 on going the Spring 2.0 xml style route. I saw the presentation on
JavaPolis and I liked the conciseness of their new syntax. I'm currently
migrating my build to maven 2 and I am not able to do this quickly because
of the repetition in the POM 4.0. It is unreadable due to the repetition of
dependencies, plugin management etc.
Having a shorthand available would make life so much easier.
I don't agree with the camp that it is just a matter of taste. If it were,
why is Spring adding the simplified support to their configuration file? Not
because it is just a matter of taste. Reading this thread, there is a
genuine interest in making configuring the pom much simpler. Having such
progress would help adoption of maven2 even better.
Martijn
On 12/18/05, Arik Kfir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Don't confuse "shorter" with "more readable". I don't mind going for
> the "mygroup/myartiact" instead of attributes. I just wanted
> to note that the existing syntax is (perhaps) *too* verbose...
>
> I definitly agree with your example, and maintainance takes priority
> over number-of-source-lines...but when you reach 20..30 dependencies,
> things get messy... Some might argue that having 20 dependencies might
> indicate a hidden problem, but even with 10 dependencies, combined
> with a real-world and section, you get a pretty big
> POM...
>
> Anyway, just my 2cents ;-)
>
> On 12/17/05, Eric Redmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -0
> >
> > Support for both should be out of the question. Double the
> documentation,
> > double the confusion, double the possibility for error proneness.
> >
> > Readability is very important. I've never been a big fan of the "less
> lines"
> > argument. Sure:
> >
> > if(a!=null){a+=" label";System,out.println(a);}
> >
> > may be less lines than:
> >
> > if ( a!=null )
> > {
> > a += " label";
> > System,out.println( a );
> > }
> >
> > However, I'd rather maintain the second than the first. Since
> maintinence of
> > code (and, by extension, the POM) is a larger percentage of the
> development
> > lifecycle than the initial writing, that is the more important piece to
> > pander too.
> >
> > I'm all for removing some of the verbosity of the POM. I kind of like
> the
> > groupId/artifactId syntax. But that's a far cry from cramming
> > everything onto a single, unreadable ( hyperbole :) ), line.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > On 12/17/05, Arik Kfir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's a good pointquestion is: Is readability of pom.xml a
> > > good-enough feature? (which brings us back to a matter of taste
> > > hehehee)
> > >
> > > On 12/17/05, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > "why not keep both camps happy? :) "
> > > >
> > > > I would personally have them spend time on bugs fixes and new
> functional
> > > features than rewrite something that is a matter of taste.
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Arik Kfir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 7:30 AM
> > > > To: Maven Users List
> > > > Subject: Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
> > > >
> > > > We all agree that it is really a matter of taste. That's precisely
> why
> > > Maven *should* support another theme.
> > > >
> > > > I definitly agree that whether attributes are more readable or not
> is
> > > arguable (at best) - but why not keep both camps happy? :) (if the
> costs
> > > are reasonable of course)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 12/17/05, Alexandre Poitras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > A simple XSLT stylesheet would do the job there. You don't need
> maven
> > > > > to support this format.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/17/05, Thomas Van de Velde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > -1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree with Brett. This is a matter of taste. My taste goes
> > > > > > towards the existing solution. Writing everything on a single
> line
> > > > > > may even become less readable. Have you ever tried to read an
> > > > > > Eclipse .classpath file? You can hardly say that's mor
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
Don't confuse "shorter" with "more readable". I don't mind going for
the "mygroup/myartiact" instead of attributes. I just wanted
to note that the existing syntax is (perhaps) *too* verbose...
I definitly agree with your example, and maintainance takes priority
over number-of-source-lines...but when you reach 20..30 dependencies,
things get messy... Some might argue that having 20 dependencies might
indicate a hidden problem, but even with 10 dependencies, combined
with a real-world and section, you get a pretty big
POM...
Anyway, just my 2cents ;-)
On 12/17/05, Eric Redmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -0
>
> Support for both should be out of the question. Double the documentation,
> double the confusion, double the possibility for error proneness.
>
> Readability is very important. I've never been a big fan of the "less lines"
> argument. Sure:
>
> if(a!=null){a+=" label";System,out.println(a);}
>
> may be less lines than:
>
> if ( a!=null )
> {
> a += " label";
> System,out.println( a );
> }
>
> However, I'd rather maintain the second than the first. Since maintinence of
> code (and, by extension, the POM) is a larger percentage of the development
> lifecycle than the initial writing, that is the more important piece to
> pander too.
>
> I'm all for removing some of the verbosity of the POM. I kind of like the
> groupId/artifactId syntax. But that's a far cry from cramming
> everything onto a single, unreadable ( hyperbole :) ), line.
>
> Eric
>
> On 12/17/05, Arik Kfir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > That's a good pointquestion is: Is readability of pom.xml a
> > good-enough feature? (which brings us back to a matter of taste
> > hehehee)
> >
> > On 12/17/05, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "why not keep both camps happy? :) "
> > >
> > > I would personally have them spend time on bugs fixes and new functional
> > features than rewrite something that is a matter of taste.
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Arik Kfir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 7:30 AM
> > > To: Maven Users List
> > > Subject: Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
> > >
> > > We all agree that it is really a matter of taste. That's precisely why
> > Maven *should* support another theme.
> > >
> > > I definitly agree that whether attributes are more readable or not is
> > arguable (at best) - but why not keep both camps happy? :) (if the costs
> > are reasonable of course)
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/17/05, Alexandre Poitras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > A simple XSLT stylesheet would do the job there. You don't need maven
> > > > to support this format.
> > > >
> > > > On 12/17/05, Thomas Van de Velde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > -1
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with Brett. This is a matter of taste. My taste goes
> > > > > towards the existing solution. Writing everything on a single line
> > > > > may even become less readable. Have you ever tried to read an
> > > > > Eclipse .classpath file? You can hardly say that's more readeable.
> > > > > I also think that mixing attributes with elements is in this case a
> > bad idea and would hurt overall consistency.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/17/05, Srepfler Srgjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >If your sole concern is the number of lines one must type, it is
> > > > > > >certainly an option to have meta-pom.xml be in the format you
> > > > > > >find most comfortable, then xslt it into the "more verbose" m2
> > pom.xml.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >This argument of attributes versus elements has existed since the
> > > > > > >dawn of [xml] time. I am not trying to argue one way or the
> > > > > > >other, but since
> > > > > > >m1 pom used the "more verbose" syntax, it eases the transition.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My USD$0.02,
> > > > > > > -- /v\atthew
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >-
> > > > > > >
>
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
-0
Support for both should be out of the question. Double the documentation,
double the confusion, double the possibility for error proneness.
Readability is very important. I've never been a big fan of the "less lines"
argument. Sure:
if(a!=null){a+=" label";System,out.println(a);}
may be less lines than:
if ( a!=null )
{
a += " label";
System,out.println( a );
}
However, I'd rather maintain the second than the first. Since maintinence of
code (and, by extension, the POM) is a larger percentage of the development
lifecycle than the initial writing, that is the more important piece to
pander too.
I'm all for removing some of the verbosity of the POM. I kind of like the
groupId/artifactId syntax. But that's a far cry from cramming
everything onto a single, unreadable ( hyperbole :) ), line.
Eric
On 12/17/05, Arik Kfir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That's a good pointquestion is: Is readability of pom.xml a
> good-enough feature? (which brings us back to a matter of taste
> hehehee)
>
> On 12/17/05, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "why not keep both camps happy? :) "
> >
> > I would personally have them spend time on bugs fixes and new functional
> features than rewrite something that is a matter of taste.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Arik Kfir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 7:30 AM
> > To: Maven Users List
> > Subject: Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
> >
> > We all agree that it is really a matter of taste. That's precisely why
> Maven *should* support another theme.
> >
> > I definitly agree that whether attributes are more readable or not is
> arguable (at best) - but why not keep both camps happy? :) (if the costs
> are reasonable of course)
> >
> >
> > On 12/17/05, Alexandre Poitras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > A simple XSLT stylesheet would do the job there. You don't need maven
> > > to support this format.
> > >
> > > On 12/17/05, Thomas Van de Velde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > -1
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Brett. This is a matter of taste. My taste goes
> > > > towards the existing solution. Writing everything on a single line
> > > > may even become less readable. Have you ever tried to read an
> > > > Eclipse .classpath file? You can hardly say that's more readeable.
> > > > I also think that mixing attributes with elements is in this case a
> bad idea and would hurt overall consistency.
> > > >
> > > > On 12/17/05, Srepfler Srgjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >If your sole concern is the number of lines one must type, it is
> > > > > >certainly an option to have meta-pom.xml be in the format you
> > > > > >find most comfortable, then xslt it into the "more verbose" m2
> pom.xml.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >This argument of attributes versus elements has existed since the
> > > > > >dawn of [xml] time. I am not trying to argue one way or the
> > > > > >other, but since
> > > > > >m1 pom used the "more verbose" syntax, it eases the transition.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My USD$0.02,
> > > > > > -- /v\atthew
> > > > > >
> > > > > >-
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > In fact people should develop a plugin that maps the simplified
> > > > > and verbose schemas on the fly :) The advantage of using
> > > > > namespaces is that you can create a your tag and map it to the
> > > > > verbose tag from the official pom.
> > > > > That's the way I've seen the spring guys use it for now but the
> > > > > advantage that I see is that in could be much easier to extend the
> > > > > pom and it would be more "type safe"
> > > > >
> > > > > My 0.02MKD
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alexandre Poitras
> > > Québec, Canada
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > _
> > Arik Kfir[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> _
> Arik Kfir[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
That's a good pointquestion is: Is readability of pom.xml a good-enough feature? (which brings us back to a matter of taste hehehee) On 12/17/05, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "why not keep both camps happy? :) " > > I would personally have them spend time on bugs fixes and new functional > features than rewrite something that is a matter of taste. > > -Original Message- > From: Arik Kfir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 7:30 AM > To: Maven Users List > Subject: Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler? > > We all agree that it is really a matter of taste. That's precisely why Maven > *should* support another theme. > > I definitly agree that whether attributes are more readable or not is > arguable (at best) - but why not keep both camps happy? :) (if the costs are > reasonable of course) > > > On 12/17/05, Alexandre Poitras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A simple XSLT stylesheet would do the job there. You don't need maven > > to support this format. > > > > On 12/17/05, Thomas Van de Velde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > -1 > > > > > > I agree with Brett. This is a matter of taste. My taste goes > > > towards the existing solution. Writing everything on a single line > > > may even become less readable. Have you ever tried to read an > > > Eclipse .classpath file? You can hardly say that's more readeable. > > > I also think that mixing attributes with elements is in this case a bad > > > idea and would hurt overall consistency. > > > > > > On 12/17/05, Srepfler Srgjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >If your sole concern is the number of lines one must type, it is > > > > >certainly an option to have meta-pom.xml be in the format you > > > > >find most comfortable, then xslt it into the "more verbose" m2 pom.xml. > > > > > > > > > >This argument of attributes versus elements has existed since the > > > > >dawn of [xml] time. I am not trying to argue one way or the > > > > >other, but since > > > > >m1 pom used the "more verbose" syntax, it eases the transition. > > > > > > > > > > My USD$0.02, > > > > > -- /v\atthew > > > > > > > > > >- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In fact people should develop a plugin that maps the simplified > > > > and verbose schemas on the fly :) The advantage of using > > > > namespaces is that you can create a your tag and map it to the > > > > verbose tag from the official pom. > > > > That's the way I've seen the spring guys use it for now but the > > > > advantage that I see is that in could be much easier to extend the > > > > pom and it would be more "type safe" > > > > > > > > My 0.02MKD > > > > > > > > -- > > > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Alexandre Poitras > > Québec, Canada > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Regards, > _ > Arik Kfir[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Regards, _ Arik Kfir[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
"why not keep both camps happy? :) " I would personally have them spend time on bugs fixes and new functional features than rewrite something that is a matter of taste. -Original Message- From: Arik Kfir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 7:30 AM To: Maven Users List Subject: Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler? We all agree that it is really a matter of taste. That's precisely why Maven *should* support another theme. I definitly agree that whether attributes are more readable or not is arguable (at best) - but why not keep both camps happy? :) (if the costs are reasonable of course) On 12/17/05, Alexandre Poitras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A simple XSLT stylesheet would do the job there. You don't need maven > to support this format. > > On 12/17/05, Thomas Van de Velde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -1 > > > > I agree with Brett. This is a matter of taste. My taste goes > > towards the existing solution. Writing everything on a single line > > may even become less readable. Have you ever tried to read an > > Eclipse .classpath file? You can hardly say that's more readeable. > > I also think that mixing attributes with elements is in this case a bad > > idea and would hurt overall consistency. > > > > On 12/17/05, Srepfler Srgjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >If your sole concern is the number of lines one must type, it is > > > >certainly an option to have meta-pom.xml be in the format you > > > >find most comfortable, then xslt it into the "more verbose" m2 pom.xml. > > > > > > > >This argument of attributes versus elements has existed since the > > > >dawn of [xml] time. I am not trying to argue one way or the > > > >other, but since > > > >m1 pom used the "more verbose" syntax, it eases the transition. > > > > > > > > My USD$0.02, > > > > -- /v\atthew > > > > > > > >- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In fact people should develop a plugin that maps the simplified > > > and verbose schemas on the fly :) The advantage of using > > > namespaces is that you can create a your tag and map it to the > > > verbose tag from the official pom. > > > That's the way I've seen the spring guys use it for now but the > > > advantage that I see is that in could be much easier to extend the > > > pom and it would be more "type safe" > > > > > > My 0.02MKD > > > > > > -- > > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Alexandre Poitras > Québec, Canada > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Regards, _ Arik Kfir[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
We all agree that it is really a matter of taste. That's precisely why Maven *should* support another theme. I definitly agree that whether attributes are more readable or not is arguable (at best) - but why not keep both camps happy? :) (if the costs are reasonable of course) On 12/17/05, Alexandre Poitras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A simple XSLT stylesheet would do the job there. You don't need maven > to support this format. > > On 12/17/05, Thomas Van de Velde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -1 > > > > I agree with Brett. This is a matter of taste. My taste goes towards the > > existing solution. Writing everything on a single line may even become less > > readable. Have you ever tried to read an Eclipse .classpath file? You can > > hardly say that's more readeable. I also think that mixing attributes with > > elements is in this case a bad idea and would hurt overall consistency. > > > > On 12/17/05, Srepfler Srgjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >If your sole concern is the number of lines one must type, it is > > > >certainly an option to have meta-pom.xml be in the format you find most > > > >comfortable, then xslt it into the "more verbose" m2 pom.xml. > > > > > > > >This argument of attributes versus elements has existed since the dawn > > > >of [xml] time. I am not trying to argue one way or the other, but since > > > >m1 pom used the "more verbose" syntax, it eases the transition. > > > > > > > > My USD$0.02, > > > > -- /v\atthew > > > > > > > >- > > > > > > > > > > > In fact people should develop a plugin that maps the simplified and > > > verbose schemas on the fly :) > > > The advantage of using namespaces is that you can create a your tag and > > > map it to the verbose tag from the official pom. > > > That's the way I've seen the spring guys use it for now but the > > > advantage that I see is that in could be much easier to extend the pom > > > and it would be more "type safe" > > > > > > My 0.02MKD > > > > > > - > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Alexandre Poitras > Québec, Canada > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Regards, _ Arik Kfir[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
A simple XSLT stylesheet would do the job there. You don't need maven to support this format. On 12/17/05, Thomas Van de Velde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -1 > > I agree with Brett. This is a matter of taste. My taste goes towards the > existing solution. Writing everything on a single line may even become less > readable. Have you ever tried to read an Eclipse .classpath file? You can > hardly say that's more readeable. I also think that mixing attributes with > elements is in this case a bad idea and would hurt overall consistency. > > On 12/17/05, Srepfler Srgjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > >If your sole concern is the number of lines one must type, it is > > >certainly an option to have meta-pom.xml be in the format you find most > > >comfortable, then xslt it into the "more verbose" m2 pom.xml. > > > > > >This argument of attributes versus elements has existed since the dawn > > >of [xml] time. I am not trying to argue one way or the other, but since > > >m1 pom used the "more verbose" syntax, it eases the transition. > > > > > > My USD$0.02, > > > -- /v\atthew > > > > > >- > > > > > > > > In fact people should develop a plugin that maps the simplified and > > verbose schemas on the fly :) > > The advantage of using namespaces is that you can create a your tag and > > map it to the verbose tag from the official pom. > > That's the way I've seen the spring guys use it for now but the > > advantage that I see is that in could be much easier to extend the pom > > and it would be more "type safe" > > > > My 0.02MKD > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- Alexandre Poitras Québec, Canada - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
-1 I agree with Brett. This is a matter of taste. My taste goes towards the existing solution. Writing everything on a single line may even become less readable. Have you ever tried to read an Eclipse .classpath file? You can hardly say that's more readeable. I also think that mixing attributes with elements is in this case a bad idea and would hurt overall consistency. On 12/17/05, Srepfler Srgjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >If your sole concern is the number of lines one must type, it is > >certainly an option to have meta-pom.xml be in the format you find most > >comfortable, then xslt it into the "more verbose" m2 pom.xml. > > > >This argument of attributes versus elements has existed since the dawn > >of [xml] time. I am not trying to argue one way or the other, but since > >m1 pom used the "more verbose" syntax, it eases the transition. > > > > My USD$0.02, > > -- /v\atthew > > > >- > > > > > In fact people should develop a plugin that maps the simplified and > verbose schemas on the fly :) > The advantage of using namespaces is that you can create a your tag and > map it to the verbose tag from the official pom. > That's the way I've seen the spring guys use it for now but the > advantage that I see is that in could be much easier to extend the pom > and it would be more "type safe" > > My 0.02MKD > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
If your sole concern is the number of lines one must type, it is certainly an option to have meta-pom.xml be in the format you find most comfortable, then xslt it into the "more verbose" m2 pom.xml. This argument of attributes versus elements has existed since the dawn of [xml] time. I am not trying to argue one way or the other, but since m1 pom used the "more verbose" syntax, it eases the transition. My USD$0.02, -- /v\atthew - In fact people should develop a plugin that maps the simplified and verbose schemas on the fly :) The advantage of using namespaces is that you can create a your tag and map it to the verbose tag from the official pom. That's the way I've seen the spring guys use it for now but the advantage that I see is that in could be much easier to extend the pom and it would be more "type safe" My 0.02MKD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:15:02PM +0100, ir. ing. Jan Dockx wrote: > here, here > > Directory "pom", next to pom.xml, src and target; all xml files there > are merged together; or something; reminds me of our faces-config.xml > setup. As a matter of fact, current xerces supports the XInclude, so, as I see, partitioning POM is not a problem, just the distribution mechanism, has to be xinclude aware. http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/ http://xerces.apache.org/xerces2-j/faq-xinclude.html incze - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
+1 on this from me. I have a very large project with a large number of dependencies and just the size of the file makes things more complicated than it could be. Is seems to be that expressing having fewer characters that same exactly the same thing would make large files much simpler. Matt On Dec 14, 2005, at 8:06 PM, Matt Raible wrote: After seeing what the Spring Developers have done to simplify Spring context files, I can't help but think the same thing is possible for Maven 2's pom.xml. Is it possible to add namespaces and make something like the following possible? Before: springframework spring 1.2.6 After: Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? version="1.2.6"/> Allowing 1 line instead of 5-6 lines per dependency would allow me to cut my dependencies listing from 140 lines of XML to 37 lines. When the Spring guys allows a couple of elements as attributes ( and ) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. Here's an example of my simplified version: scope="test"/> version="2.0"/> version="3.0.5"> version="1.2.6"/> Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide some motivation. ;-) Matt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Matt Brozowski, OpenNMS Maintainer Main: +1 919 812 4984 The OpenNMS Group, Inc. Fax:+1 503 961 7746 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]URL: http://www.opennms.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
+1 to that. Kind regards, Dave Sag Matt Raible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 15-12-2005 02:06:04: > After seeing what the Spring Developers have done to simplify Spring > context files, I can't help but think the same thing is possible for > Maven 2's pom.xml. Is it possible to add namespaces and make > something like the following possible? > > Before: > > > springframework > spring > 1.2.6 > > > After: > > > > Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? > > > version="1.2.6"/> > > Allowing 1 line instead of 5-6 lines per dependency would allow me to > cut my dependencies listing from 140 lines of XML to 37 lines. When > the Spring guys allows a couple of elements as attributes ( and > ) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. > > Here's an example of my simplified version: > > > > scope="test"/> > > version="2.0"/> > > version="1.0.4"/> > > version="1.0" scope="runtime"> > > > > > > version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> > > version="3.0.5"> > > > > > > version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> > > scope="test"/> > > scope="test"/> > > scope="test"/> > > scope="test"> > > > > > > > version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> > > version="2.4" scope="provided"/> > > version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > > version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > > version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> > > artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" scope="runtime"/> > > version="1.2.6"/> > > version="1.2.6" scope="test"> > > > > > > > > Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide some > motivation. ;-) > > > > > > > Matt > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
> Is it possible to add namespaces and make something like the following > possible? If I'm not mistaken, m2's pom does have namespaces. The root element is in the 'http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0' namespace. I'm not certain how that impacts your real question, however. > Allowing 1 line instead of 5-6 lines per dependency would allow me to > cut my dependencies listing from 140 lines of XML to 37 lines. If your sole concern is the number of lines one must type, it is certainly an option to have meta-pom.xml be in the format you find most comfortable, then xslt it into the "more verbose" m2 pom.xml. This argument of attributes versus elements has existed since the dawn of [xml] time. I am not trying to argue one way or the other, but since m1 pom used the "more verbose" syntax, it eases the transition. My USD$0.02, -- /v\atthew - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
Hi Carlos, Carlos Sanchez wrote on Thursday, December 15, 2005 10:35 PM: > If you have such a big pom, think that you're doing something wrong. > You have extension and transitive dependencies, if you use them in the > right way your pom won't grow without control We use one master POM for dependency consistency with a already quite large depednencyManagement section. And I converted just about 10% of our Maven 1 builds. If I add all those exclusions, that I have sometimes to make for a single dependency, this is really more than verbose. Alone for xfire-core I have 38 lines! - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
If you have such a big pom, think that you're doing something wrong. You have extension and transitive dependencies, if you use them in the right way your pom won't grow without control On 12/15/05, Arik Kfir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about splitting the POM? I mean, it's obvious that the POM will > only grow with time. So a logical (though possibly controversial) step > would be supporting (but NOT mandating!) a POM split. For example: > > > > Or something along these lines (a standardized name for the deps file > is good too). > The same can be applied for plugins, etc. Support for complete, > in-place, POMs must still exist of course. > > We can then move to a "src/pom" dir which will contain > "dependencies.xml", "build.xml", "plugins.xml" etc, which is > consistent with the "src/site/site.xml" as well ;-) > > WDYT? > > On 12/15/05, Frank Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm new to Maven. TBH, I didn't give it much thought. Considering how > > big some ant build.xml files get, the pom didn't seem overly exagerated. > > Could it have been simplified? Sure, but I don't see it as an issue. > > Having two different formats I think is worse. Just keep in in mind for > > whenever there is a 3.0 release. > > > > Frank Russo > > Senior Developer > > FX Alliance, LLC > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Matt Raible [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 3:01 PM > > > To: Maven Users List > > > Subject: Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler? > > > > > > > > > It would be interesting to see what *potential* users think - > > > as in current Ant users. > > > > > > Asking existing Maven users is a good survey, but it's not a > > > good representation of what the larger Java community thinks IMO. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > On 12/15/05, dan tran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > +1 to keep. > > > > > > > > Supporting both will be maintainant nightmare, drop the > > > current one is > > > > impossible. > > > > > > > > I am happy to see one format since I am able to focus to > > > creating the > > > > content rather then worrying about syntaxfor each element. > > > The current > > > > syntax is good. > > > > > > > > -Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/15/05, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Let's not start another attributes vs elements holy war :) > > > > > > > > > > I have no problem with either, but the reasons I see not > > > to change: > > > > > - we would have to support both. This may lead to confusion. > > > > > - currently it is very consistent - there are no > > > attributes, lists > > > > > are always visible as lists, etc. The syntax is a lot more > > > > > memorable, even if it is more verbose. > > > > > > > > > > I agree that requiring tools is a bad idea, but they > > > certainly won't > > > > > hurt (even an XML editor + XSD will do the trick here). I > > > think the > > > > > focus should be on removing repetition in the content, not the > > > > > syntax. > > > > > > > > > > That's just my view - others? > > > > > > > > > > - Brett > > > > > > > > > > On 12/15/05, Cservenak Tamas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > A very big +1 here! > > > > > > > > > > > > ~t~ > > > > > > > > > > > > Milos Kleint wrote: > > > > > > > maybe there's just need for tools to help creating the pom > > > > > > > content? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Milos > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris Berry wrote: > > > > > > >> Hi Matt! > > > > > > >> A big +1 from me. I've been discussing this w/ John, > > > Jason, et > > > > > > >> al. A push towards simplifying/shortening the XML would be a > > > > > > >> big help. Cheers, > > > > > > >> -- Chris > > > >
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
here, here Directory "pom", next to pom.xml, src and target; all xml files there are merged together; or something; reminds me of our faces-config.xml setup. On 15 Dec 2005, at 21:45, Arik Kfir wrote: How about splitting the POM? I mean, it's obvious that the POM will only grow with time. So a logical (though possibly controversial) step would be supporting (but NOT mandating!) a POM split. For example: Or something along these lines (a standardized name for the deps file is good too). The same can be applied for plugins, etc. Support for complete, in-place, POMs must still exist of course. We can then move to a "src/pom" dir which will contain "dependencies.xml", "build.xml", "plugins.xml" etc, which is consistent with the "src/site/site.xml" as well ;-) WDYT? On 12/15/05, Frank Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm new to Maven. TBH, I didn't give it much thought. Considering how big some ant build.xml files get, the pom didn't seem overly exagerated. Could it have been simplified? Sure, but I don't see it as an issue. Having two different formats I think is worse. Just keep in in mind for whenever there is a 3.0 release. Frank Russo Senior Developer FX Alliance, LLC -Original Message- From: Matt Raible [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 3:01 PM To: Maven Users List Subject: Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler? It would be interesting to see what *potential* users think - as in current Ant users. Asking existing Maven users is a good survey, but it's not a good representation of what the larger Java community thinks IMO. Matt On 12/15/05, dan tran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 to keep. Supporting both will be maintainant nightmare, drop the current one is impossible. I am happy to see one format since I am able to focus to creating the content rather then worrying about syntaxfor each element. The current syntax is good. -Dan On 12/15/05, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Let's not start another attributes vs elements holy war :) I have no problem with either, but the reasons I see not to change: - we would have to support both. This may lead to confusion. - currently it is very consistent - there are no attributes, lists are always visible as lists, etc. The syntax is a lot more memorable, even if it is more verbose. I agree that requiring tools is a bad idea, but they certainly won't hurt (even an XML editor + XSD will do the trick here). I think the focus should be on removing repetition in the content, not the syntax. That's just my view - others? - Brett On 12/15/05, Cservenak Tamas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A very big +1 here! ~t~ Milos Kleint wrote: maybe there's just need for tools to help creating the pom content? Milos Chris Berry wrote: Hi Matt! A big +1 from me. I've been discussing this w/ John, Jason, et al. A push towards simplifying/shortening the XML would be a big help. Cheers, -- Chris On 12/15/05, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Actually, an even better thing to do would be to participate in the design for 2.1. The page for some of this discussion is at: http://docs.codehaus.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=32108 Cheers, John Allan Ramirez wrote: Please file a jira issue for this http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG -allan Matt Raible wrote: After seeing what the Spring Developers have done to simplify Spring context files, I can't help but think the same thing is possible for Maven 2's pom.xml. Is it possible to add namespaces and make something like the following possible? Before: springframework spring 1.2.6 After: version="1.2.6"/> Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? artifactId="spring" version="1.2.6"/> Allowing 1 line instead of 5-6 lines per dependency would allow me to cut my dependencies listing from 140 lines of XML to 37 lines. When the Spring guys allows a couple of elements as attributes ( and ) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. Here's an example of my simplified version: version="0.6" scope="test"/> artifactId="commons-lang" version="2.0"/> artifactId="commons-logging" version="1.0.4"/> artifactId="displaytag" version="1.0" scope="runtime"> version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> artifactId="hibernate" version="3.0.5"> groupId="javax.transaction"/> artifactId="geronimo-spec-jta" version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> version="1.0.1" scope="test"/> version="3.8.1" scope="test"/> version=" 1.2" scope="test"/> version=" 1.6" scope="test"> version="1.2.11 &
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
How about splitting the POM? I mean, it's obvious that the POM will only grow with time. So a logical (though possibly controversial) step would be supporting (but NOT mandating!) a POM split. For example: Or something along these lines (a standardized name for the deps file is good too). The same can be applied for plugins, etc. Support for complete, in-place, POMs must still exist of course. We can then move to a "src/pom" dir which will contain "dependencies.xml", "build.xml", "plugins.xml" etc, which is consistent with the "src/site/site.xml" as well ;-) WDYT? On 12/15/05, Frank Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm new to Maven. TBH, I didn't give it much thought. Considering how > big some ant build.xml files get, the pom didn't seem overly exagerated. > Could it have been simplified? Sure, but I don't see it as an issue. > Having two different formats I think is worse. Just keep in in mind for > whenever there is a 3.0 release. > > Frank Russo > Senior Developer > FX Alliance, LLC > > > -Original Message- > > From: Matt Raible [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 3:01 PM > > To: Maven Users List > > Subject: Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler? > > > > > > It would be interesting to see what *potential* users think - > > as in current Ant users. > > > > Asking existing Maven users is a good survey, but it's not a > > good representation of what the larger Java community thinks IMO. > > > > Matt > > > > On 12/15/05, dan tran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > +1 to keep. > > > > > > Supporting both will be maintainant nightmare, drop the > > current one is > > > impossible. > > > > > > I am happy to see one format since I am able to focus to > > creating the > > > content rather then worrying about syntaxfor each element. > > The current > > > syntax is good. > > > > > > -Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/15/05, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Let's not start another attributes vs elements holy war :) > > > > > > > > I have no problem with either, but the reasons I see not > > to change: > > > > - we would have to support both. This may lead to confusion. > > > > - currently it is very consistent - there are no > > attributes, lists > > > > are always visible as lists, etc. The syntax is a lot more > > > > memorable, even if it is more verbose. > > > > > > > > I agree that requiring tools is a bad idea, but they > > certainly won't > > > > hurt (even an XML editor + XSD will do the trick here). I > > think the > > > > focus should be on removing repetition in the content, not the > > > > syntax. > > > > > > > > That's just my view - others? > > > > > > > > - Brett > > > > > > > > On 12/15/05, Cservenak Tamas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > A very big +1 here! > > > > > > > > > > ~t~ > > > > > > > > > > Milos Kleint wrote: > > > > > > maybe there's just need for tools to help creating the pom > > > > > > content? > > > > > > > > > > > > Milos > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris Berry wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Matt! > > > > > >> A big +1 from me. I've been discussing this w/ John, > > Jason, et > > > > > >> al. A push towards simplifying/shortening the XML would be a > > > > > >> big help. Cheers, > > > > > >> -- Chris > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 12/15/05, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> Actually, an even better thing to do would be to > > participate > > > > > >>> in the design for 2.1. The page for some of this > > discussion is > > > > > >>> at: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> http://docs.codehaus.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=32108 > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Cheers, > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> John > > > > > >>> > > > &
RE: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
I'm new to Maven. TBH, I didn't give it much thought. Considering how big some ant build.xml files get, the pom didn't seem overly exagerated. Could it have been simplified? Sure, but I don't see it as an issue. Having two different formats I think is worse. Just keep in in mind for whenever there is a 3.0 release. Frank Russo Senior Developer FX Alliance, LLC > -Original Message- > From: Matt Raible [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 3:01 PM > To: Maven Users List > Subject: Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler? > > > It would be interesting to see what *potential* users think - > as in current Ant users. > > Asking existing Maven users is a good survey, but it's not a > good representation of what the larger Java community thinks IMO. > > Matt > > On 12/15/05, dan tran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 to keep. > > > > Supporting both will be maintainant nightmare, drop the > current one is > > impossible. > > > > I am happy to see one format since I am able to focus to > creating the > > content rather then worrying about syntaxfor each element. > The current > > syntax is good. > > > > -Dan > > > > > > > > > > On 12/15/05, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Let's not start another attributes vs elements holy war :) > > > > > > I have no problem with either, but the reasons I see not > to change: > > > - we would have to support both. This may lead to confusion. > > > - currently it is very consistent - there are no > attributes, lists > > > are always visible as lists, etc. The syntax is a lot more > > > memorable, even if it is more verbose. > > > > > > I agree that requiring tools is a bad idea, but they > certainly won't > > > hurt (even an XML editor + XSD will do the trick here). I > think the > > > focus should be on removing repetition in the content, not the > > > syntax. > > > > > > That's just my view - others? > > > > > > - Brett > > > > > > On 12/15/05, Cservenak Tamas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > A very big +1 here! > > > > > > > > ~t~ > > > > > > > > Milos Kleint wrote: > > > > > maybe there's just need for tools to help creating the pom > > > > > content? > > > > > > > > > > Milos > > > > > > > > > > Chris Berry wrote: > > > > >> Hi Matt! > > > > >> A big +1 from me. I've been discussing this w/ John, > Jason, et > > > > >> al. A push towards simplifying/shortening the XML would be a > > > > >> big help. Cheers, > > > > >> -- Chris > > > > >> > > > > >> On 12/15/05, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Actually, an even better thing to do would be to > participate > > > > >>> in the design for 2.1. The page for some of this > discussion is > > > > >>> at: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> http://docs.codehaus.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=32108 > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Cheers, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> John > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Allan Ramirez wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Please file a jira issue for this > > > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> -allan > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Matt Raible wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> After seeing what the Spring Developers have done to > > > > >>>>> simplify > > > Spring > > > > >>>>> context files, I can't help but think the same thing is > > > > >>>>> possible > > > for > > > > >>>>> Maven 2's pom.xml. Is it possible to add namespaces and > > > > >>>>> make something like the following possible? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Before: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> &g
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
It would be interesting to see what *potential* users think - as in current Ant users. Asking existing Maven users is a good survey, but it's not a good representation of what the larger Java community thinks IMO. Matt On 12/15/05, dan tran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 to keep. > > Supporting both will be maintainant nightmare, drop the current one is > impossible. > > I am happy to see one format since I am able to focus to creating the > content rather > then worrying about syntaxfor each element. The current syntax is good. > > -Dan > > > > > On 12/15/05, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Let's not start another attributes vs elements holy war :) > > > > I have no problem with either, but the reasons I see not to change: > > - we would have to support both. This may lead to confusion. > > - currently it is very consistent - there are no attributes, lists are > > always visible as lists, etc. The syntax is a lot more memorable, > > even if it is more verbose. > > > > I agree that requiring tools is a bad idea, but they certainly won't > > hurt (even an XML editor + XSD will do the trick here). I think the > > focus should be on removing repetition in the content, not the syntax. > > > > That's just my view - others? > > > > - Brett > > > > On 12/15/05, Cservenak Tamas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > A very big +1 here! > > > > > > ~t~ > > > > > > Milos Kleint wrote: > > > > maybe there's just need for tools to help creating the pom content? > > > > > > > > Milos > > > > > > > > Chris Berry wrote: > > > >> Hi Matt! > > > >> A big +1 from me. I've been discussing this w/ John, Jason, et al. A > > > >> push > > > >> towards simplifying/shortening the XML would be a big help. > > > >> Cheers, > > > >> -- Chris > > > >> > > > >> On 12/15/05, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Actually, an even better thing to do would be to participate in the > > > >>> design for 2.1. The page for some of this discussion is at: > > > >>> > > > >>> http://docs.codehaus.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=32108 > > > >>> > > > >>> Cheers, > > > >>> > > > >>> John > > > >>> > > > >>> Allan Ramirez wrote: > > > >>> > > > Please file a jira issue for this > > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG > > > > > > -allan > > > > > > Matt Raible wrote: > > > > > > > > > > After seeing what the Spring Developers have done to simplify > > Spring > > > > context files, I can't help but think the same thing is possible > > for > > > > Maven 2's pom.xml. Is it possible to add namespaces and make > > > > something like the following possible? > > > > > > > > Before: > > > > > > > > > > > > springframework > > > > spring > > > > 1.2.6 > > > > > > > > > > > > After: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? > > > > > > > > > > > version="1.2.6"/> > > > > > > > > Allowing 1 line instead of 5-6 lines per dependency would allow me > > to > > > > cut my dependencies listing from 140 lines of XML to 37 > > lines. When > > > > the Spring guys allows a couple of elements as attributes ( > > and > > > > ) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. > > > > > > > > Here's an example of my simplified version: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scope="test"/> > > > > > > > version="2.0"/> > > > > > artifactId="commons-logging" > > > > version="1.0.4"/> > > > > > > > version="1.0" scope="runtime"> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> > > > > > > > version="3.0.5"> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > artifactId="geronimo-spec-jta" > > > > version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> > > > > > > > scope="test"/> > > > > > > > scope="test"/> > > > > > > > scope="test"/> > > > > > > > scope="test"> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> > > > > > > > version="2.4" scope="provided"/> > > > > > > > version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > > > > > > > version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > > > > > > > version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> > > > > > > > artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" > > scope="runtime"/> > > > > > > > version="1.2.6"/> > > > > > > > version="1.2.6" scope="test"> > > > > > > > > > > > groupId="springframework"/> > > > > > groupId="springframework"/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide > > > > some > > > > motivati
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
+1 to keep. Supporting both will be maintainant nightmare, drop the current one is impossible. I am happy to see one format since I am able to focus to creating the content rather then worrying about syntaxfor each element. The current syntax is good. -Dan On 12/15/05, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Let's not start another attributes vs elements holy war :) > > I have no problem with either, but the reasons I see not to change: > - we would have to support both. This may lead to confusion. > - currently it is very consistent - there are no attributes, lists are > always visible as lists, etc. The syntax is a lot more memorable, > even if it is more verbose. > > I agree that requiring tools is a bad idea, but they certainly won't > hurt (even an XML editor + XSD will do the trick here). I think the > focus should be on removing repetition in the content, not the syntax. > > That's just my view - others? > > - Brett > > On 12/15/05, Cservenak Tamas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A very big +1 here! > > > > ~t~ > > > > Milos Kleint wrote: > > > maybe there's just need for tools to help creating the pom content? > > > > > > Milos > > > > > > Chris Berry wrote: > > >> Hi Matt! > > >> A big +1 from me. I've been discussing this w/ John, Jason, et al. A > > >> push > > >> towards simplifying/shortening the XML would be a big help. > > >> Cheers, > > >> -- Chris > > >> > > >> On 12/15/05, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Actually, an even better thing to do would be to participate in the > > >>> design for 2.1. The page for some of this discussion is at: > > >>> > > >>> http://docs.codehaus.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=32108 > > >>> > > >>> Cheers, > > >>> > > >>> John > > >>> > > >>> Allan Ramirez wrote: > > >>> > > Please file a jira issue for this > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG > > > > -allan > > > > Matt Raible wrote: > > > > > > > After seeing what the Spring Developers have done to simplify > Spring > > > context files, I can't help but think the same thing is possible > for > > > Maven 2's pom.xml. Is it possible to add namespaces and make > > > something like the following possible? > > > > > > Before: > > > > > > > > > springframework > > > spring > > > 1.2.6 > > > > > > > > > After: > > > > > > > > > > > > Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? > > > > > > > > version="1.2.6"/> > > > > > > Allowing 1 line instead of 5-6 lines per dependency would allow me > to > > > cut my dependencies listing from 140 lines of XML to 37 > lines. When > > > the Spring guys allows a couple of elements as attributes ( > and > > > ) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. > > > > > > Here's an example of my simplified version: > > > > > > > > > > > scope="test"/> > > > > > version="2.0"/> > > > artifactId="commons-logging" > > > version="1.0.4"/> > > > > > version="1.0" scope="runtime"> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> > > > > > version="3.0.5"> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > artifactId="geronimo-spec-jta" > > > version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> > > > > > scope="test"/> > > > > > scope="test"/> > > > > > scope="test"/> > > > > > scope="test"> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> > > > > > version="2.4" scope="provided"/> > > > > > version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > > > > > version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > > > > > version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> > > > > > artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" > scope="runtime"/> > > > > > version="1.2.6"/> > > > > > version="1.2.6" scope="test"> > > > > > > > > groupId="springframework"/> > > > groupId="springframework"/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide > > > some > > > motivation. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > - > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
Brett Porter wrote: Let's not start another attributes vs elements holy war :) I have no problem with either, but the reasons I see not to change: - we would have to support both. This may lead to confusion. - currently it is very consistent - there are no attributes, lists are always visible as lists, etc. The syntax is a lot more memorable, even if it is more verbose. I agree that requiring tools is a bad idea, but they certainly won't hurt (even an XML editor + XSD will do the trick here). I think the focus should be on removing repetition in the content, not the syntax. That's just my view - others? - Brett I think that both formats should be valid, however if a plugins is to be put in the repository I'd go with the longer version that way it's all standardized and clean. I think it should be easy to make a tool that parses a pom and spits out one or the other version. What I'd be more interested is the namespaces issue, I really hate the way ant gets extended and the way we mix things in the pom without a namespace (ex, you can put in directly ant tags inside, for me that is just asking for trouble), this leads to unverifiable and dependent to external factors pom. The added benefit is that from that point on any xml editor that understand xsd's would work great. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
Let's not start another attributes vs elements holy war :) I have no problem with either, but the reasons I see not to change: - we would have to support both. This may lead to confusion. - currently it is very consistent - there are no attributes, lists are always visible as lists, etc. The syntax is a lot more memorable, even if it is more verbose. I agree that requiring tools is a bad idea, but they certainly won't hurt (even an XML editor + XSD will do the trick here). I think the focus should be on removing repetition in the content, not the syntax. That's just my view - others? - Brett On 12/15/05, Cservenak Tamas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A very big +1 here! > > ~t~ > > Milos Kleint wrote: > > maybe there's just need for tools to help creating the pom content? > > > > Milos > > > > Chris Berry wrote: > >> Hi Matt! > >> A big +1 from me. I've been discussing this w/ John, Jason, et al. A > >> push > >> towards simplifying/shortening the XML would be a big help. > >> Cheers, > >> -- Chris > >> > >> On 12/15/05, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> Actually, an even better thing to do would be to participate in the > >>> design for 2.1. The page for some of this discussion is at: > >>> > >>> http://docs.codehaus.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=32108 > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> John > >>> > >>> Allan Ramirez wrote: > >>> > Please file a jira issue for this http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG > > -allan > > Matt Raible wrote: > > > > After seeing what the Spring Developers have done to simplify Spring > > context files, I can't help but think the same thing is possible for > > Maven 2's pom.xml. Is it possible to add namespaces and make > > something like the following possible? > > > > Before: > > > > > > springframework > > spring > > 1.2.6 > > > > > > After: > > > > > > > > Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? > > > > > version="1.2.6"/> > > > > Allowing 1 line instead of 5-6 lines per dependency would allow me to > > cut my dependencies listing from 140 lines of XML to 37 lines. When > > the Spring guys allows a couple of elements as attributes ( and > > ) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. > > > > Here's an example of my simplified version: > > > > > > > scope="test"/> > > > version="2.0"/> > > > version="1.0.4"/> > > > version="1.0" scope="runtime"> > > > > > > > > > > > version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> > > > version="3.0.5"> > > > > > > > > > > > version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> > > > scope="test"/> > > > scope="test"/> > > > scope="test"/> > > > scope="test"> > > > > > > > > > > > > > version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> > > > version="2.4" scope="provided"/> > > > version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > > > version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > > > version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> > > > artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" scope="runtime"/> > > > version="1.2.6"/> > > > version="1.2.6" scope="test"> > > > > > groupId="springframework"/> > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide > > some > > motivation. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > - > > 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] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additiona
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
A very big +1 here! ~t~ Milos Kleint wrote: > maybe there's just need for tools to help creating the pom content? > > Milos > > Chris Berry wrote: >> Hi Matt! >> A big +1 from me. I've been discussing this w/ John, Jason, et al. A >> push >> towards simplifying/shortening the XML would be a big help. >> Cheers, >> -- Chris >> >> On 12/15/05, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Actually, an even better thing to do would be to participate in the >>> design for 2.1. The page for some of this discussion is at: >>> >>> http://docs.codehaus.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=32108 >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> John >>> >>> Allan Ramirez wrote: >>> Please file a jira issue for this http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG -allan Matt Raible wrote: > After seeing what the Spring Developers have done to simplify Spring > context files, I can't help but think the same thing is possible for > Maven 2's pom.xml. Is it possible to add namespaces and make > something like the following possible? > > Before: > > > springframework > spring > 1.2.6 > > > After: > > > > Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? > > version="1.2.6"/> > > Allowing 1 line instead of 5-6 lines per dependency would allow me to > cut my dependencies listing from 140 lines of XML to 37 lines. When > the Spring guys allows a couple of elements as attributes ( and > ) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. > > Here's an example of my simplified version: > > > scope="test"/> > version="2.0"/> > version="1.0.4"/> > version="1.0" scope="runtime"> > > > > > version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> > version="3.0.5"> > > > > > version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> > scope="test"/> > scope="test"/> > scope="test"/> > scope="test"> > > > > > > version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> > version="2.4" scope="provided"/> > version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> > artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" scope="runtime"/> > version="1.2.6"/> > version="1.2.6" scope="test"> > > groupId="springframework"/> > > > > > > Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide > some > motivation. ;-) > > > > > > > Matt > > - > 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]
RE: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
Chris Berry wrote on Thursday, December 15, 2005 4:35 PM: > Agreed. When one has to lean on tools to build a build > script, IMO this > illuminates a issue. > > Do not discount the value of readability. When we go from 5-6 > lines/dependency to 1 -- then all of a sudden we can see all of the > dependencies on a single page -- take Matt's case; from ~140 > lines to ~40 -- > which implies going from 3 pages of code (60 lines/pg being > the norm) to 1. > This illustration holds for many things in the pom.xml -- e.g. plugin > declaration, etc. IMO, When one has to start scrolling all > over the place to > figure out a POM, something is amiss. > > It's not just about taste. It's about a concise, readable, > comprehend-able presentation of information. Why do I always have RelaxNG in my mind, when I read this discussion ... ;-) - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
Agreed. When one has to lean on tools to build a build script, IMO this illuminates a issue. Do not discount the value of readability. When we go from 5-6 lines/dependency to 1 -- then all of a sudden we can see all of the dependencies on a single page -- take Matt's case; from ~140 lines to ~40 -- which implies going from 3 pages of code (60 lines/pg being the norm) to 1. This illustration holds for many things in the pom.xml -- e.g. plugin declaration, etc. IMO, When one has to start scrolling all over the place to figure out a POM, something is amiss. It's not just about taste. It's about a concise, readable, comprehend-able presentation of information. On 12/15/05, Matt Raible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 12/15/05, Milos Kleint <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > maybe there's just need for tools to help creating the pom content? > > Tools will solve the problem is never a good solution IMO. Many folks > prefer to use simple text editors and they're unlikely to fire up > Eclipse just to edit their pom.xml. > > Matt > > > > > Milos > > > > Chris Berry wrote: > > > Hi Matt! > > > A big +1 from me. I've been discussing this w/ John, Jason, et al. A > push > > > towards simplifying/shortening the XML would be a big help. > > > Cheers, > > > -- Chris > > > > > > On 12/15/05, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> Actually, an even better thing to do would be to participate in the > > >> design for 2.1. The page for some of this discussion is at: > > >> > > >> http://docs.codehaus.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=32108 > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> > > >> John > > >> > > >> Allan Ramirez wrote: > > >> > > >>> Please file a jira issue for this > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG > > >>> > > >>> -allan > > >>> > > >>> Matt Raible wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > After seeing what the Spring Developers have done to simplify > Spring > > context files, I can't help but think the same thing is possible > for > > Maven 2's pom.xml. Is it possible to add namespaces and make > > something like the following possible? > > > > Before: > > > > > > springframework > > spring > > 1.2.6 > > > > > > After: > > > > > > > > Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? > > > > > version="1.2.6"/> > > > > Allowing 1 line instead of 5-6 lines per dependency would allow me > to > > cut my dependencies listing from 140 lines of XML to 37 > lines. When > > the Spring guys allows a couple of elements as attributes ( > and > > ) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. > > > > Here's an example of my simplified version: > > > > > > > scope="test"/> > > > version="2.0"/> > > artifactId="commons-logging" > > version="1.0.4"/> > > > version="1.0" scope="runtime"> > > > > > > > > > > > version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> > > > version="3.0.5"> > > > > > > > > > > artifactId="geronimo-spec-jta" > > version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> > > > scope="test"/> > > > scope="test"/> > > > scope="test"/> > > > scope="test"> > > > > > > > > > > > > > version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> > > > version="2.4" scope="provided"/> > > > version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > > > version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > > > version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> > > > artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" > scope="runtime"/> > > > version="1.2.6"/> > > > version="1.2.6" scope="test"> > > > > groupId="springframework"/> > > groupId="springframework"/> > > > > > > > > > > Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide > some > > motivation. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > - > > 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: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
On 12/15/05, Milos Kleint <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > maybe there's just need for tools to help creating the pom content? Tools will solve the problem is never a good solution IMO. Many folks prefer to use simple text editors and they're unlikely to fire up Eclipse just to edit their pom.xml. Matt > > Milos > > Chris Berry wrote: > > Hi Matt! > > A big +1 from me. I've been discussing this w/ John, Jason, et al. A push > > towards simplifying/shortening the XML would be a big help. > > Cheers, > > -- Chris > > > > On 12/15/05, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Actually, an even better thing to do would be to participate in the > >> design for 2.1. The page for some of this discussion is at: > >> > >> http://docs.codehaus.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=32108 > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> John > >> > >> Allan Ramirez wrote: > >> > >>> Please file a jira issue for this http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG > >>> > >>> -allan > >>> > >>> Matt Raible wrote: > >>> > >>> > After seeing what the Spring Developers have done to simplify Spring > context files, I can't help but think the same thing is possible for > Maven 2's pom.xml. Is it possible to add namespaces and make > something like the following possible? > > Before: > > > springframework > spring > 1.2.6 > > > After: > > > > Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? > > version="1.2.6"/> > > Allowing 1 line instead of 5-6 lines per dependency would allow me to > cut my dependencies listing from 140 lines of XML to 37 lines. When > the Spring guys allows a couple of elements as attributes ( and > ) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. > > Here's an example of my simplified version: > > > scope="test"/> > version="2.0"/> > version="1.0.4"/> > version="1.0" scope="runtime"> > > > > > version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> > version="3.0.5"> > > > > > version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> > scope="test"/> > scope="test"/> > scope="test"/> > scope="test"> > > > > > > version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> > version="2.4" scope="provided"/> > version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> > artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" scope="runtime"/> > version="1.2.6"/> > version="1.2.6" scope="test"> > > > > > > > > Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide some > motivation. ;-) > > > > > > > Matt > > - > 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]
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
maybe there's just need for tools to help creating the pom content? Milos Chris Berry wrote: Hi Matt! A big +1 from me. I've been discussing this w/ John, Jason, et al. A push towards simplifying/shortening the XML would be a big help. Cheers, -- Chris On 12/15/05, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Actually, an even better thing to do would be to participate in the design for 2.1. The page for some of this discussion is at: http://docs.codehaus.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=32108 Cheers, John Allan Ramirez wrote: Please file a jira issue for this http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG -allan Matt Raible wrote: After seeing what the Spring Developers have done to simplify Spring context files, I can't help but think the same thing is possible for Maven 2's pom.xml. Is it possible to add namespaces and make something like the following possible? Before: springframework spring 1.2.6 After: Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? Allowing 1 line instead of 5-6 lines per dependency would allow me to cut my dependencies listing from 140 lines of XML to 37 lines. When the Spring guys allows a couple of elements as attributes ( and ) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. Here's an example of my simplified version: Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide some motivation. ;-) Matt - 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: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
On 12/15/05, Chris Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A big +1 from me. I've been discussing this w/ John, Jason, et al. A push > towards simplifying/shortening the XML would be a big help. I would really like to ask to differ between "simple" and "short". I am able to see that a "simplified" POM might be easier to understand (and thus helpful). For the sake of this thread, let's ignore the disadvantages of simplification, in particular the missing features. But a "shorter" POM is a drastically different thing. It is a matter of taste (and possibly readability), whether some prefer attributes or not. Nothing more, nothing less. But it would speak for itself, if anyone would actually assert not to understand something, just because one needs to use an element and not an attribute. Same goes for three elements (group ID, artifact ID, version) vs. an attribute with combined values. And, for the record, I'd vote against both. (Reasons can indeed be found on http://docs.codehaus.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=32108 ) Jochen -- Often it does seem a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the boat. (Mark Twain) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
Hi Matt! A big +1 from me. I've been discussing this w/ John, Jason, et al. A push towards simplifying/shortening the XML would be a big help. Cheers, -- Chris On 12/15/05, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, an even better thing to do would be to participate in the > design for 2.1. The page for some of this discussion is at: > > http://docs.codehaus.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=32108 > > Cheers, > > John > > Allan Ramirez wrote: > > Please file a jira issue for this http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG > > > > -allan > > > > Matt Raible wrote: > > > >> After seeing what the Spring Developers have done to simplify Spring > >> context files, I can't help but think the same thing is possible for > >> Maven 2's pom.xml. Is it possible to add namespaces and make > >> something like the following possible? > >> > >> Before: > >> > >> > >> springframework > >> spring > >> 1.2.6 > >> > >> > >> After: > >> > >> > >> > >> Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? > >> > >> >> version="1.2.6"/> > >> > >> Allowing 1 line instead of 5-6 lines per dependency would allow me to > >> cut my dependencies listing from 140 lines of XML to 37 lines. When > >> the Spring guys allows a couple of elements as attributes ( and > >> ) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. > >> > >> Here's an example of my simplified version: > >> > >> > >> >> scope="test"/> > >> >> version="2.0"/> > >> >> version="1.0.4"/> > >> >> version="1.0" scope="runtime"> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> > >> >> version="3.0.5"> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> > >> >> scope="test"/> > >> >> scope="test"/> > >> >> scope="test"/> > >> >> scope="test"> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> > >> >> version="2.4" scope="provided"/> > >> >> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > >> >> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > >> >> version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> > >> >> artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" scope="runtime"/> > >> >> version="1.2.6"/> > >> >> version="1.2.6" scope="test"> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide some > >> motivation. ;-) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Matt > >> > >> - > >> 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: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
Actually, an even better thing to do would be to participate in the design for 2.1. The page for some of this discussion is at: http://docs.codehaus.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=32108 Cheers, John Allan Ramirez wrote: Please file a jira issue for this http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG -allan Matt Raible wrote: After seeing what the Spring Developers have done to simplify Spring context files, I can't help but think the same thing is possible for Maven 2's pom.xml. Is it possible to add namespaces and make something like the following possible? Before: springframework spring 1.2.6 After: Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? version="1.2.6"/> Allowing 1 line instead of 5-6 lines per dependency would allow me to cut my dependencies listing from 140 lines of XML to 37 lines. When the Spring guys allows a couple of elements as attributes ( and ) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. Here's an example of my simplified version: scope="test"/> version="2.0"/> version="3.0.5"> version="1.2.6"/> Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide some motivation. ;-) Matt - 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: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
Please file a jira issue for this http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG -allan Matt Raible wrote: After seeing what the Spring Developers have done to simplify Spring context files, I can't help but think the same thing is possible for Maven 2's pom.xml. Is it possible to add namespaces and make something like the following possible? Before: springframework spring 1.2.6 After: Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? Allowing 1 line instead of 5-6 lines per dependency would allow me to cut my dependencies listing from 140 lines of XML to 37 lines. When the Spring guys allows a couple of elements as attributes ( and ) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. Here's an example of my simplified version: Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide some motivation. ;-) Matt - 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]
Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
After seeing what the Spring Developers have done to simplify Spring context files, I can't help but think the same thing is possible for Maven 2's pom.xml. Is it possible to add namespaces and make something like the following possible? Before: springframework spring 1.2.6 After: Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? Allowing 1 line instead of 5-6 lines per dependency would allow me to cut my dependencies listing from 140 lines of XML to 37 lines. When the Spring guys allows a couple of elements as attributes ( and ) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. Here's an example of my simplified version: Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide some motivation. ;-) Matt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
