On 10 Sep 07, at 9:11 AM 10 Sep 07, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On 9/10/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We definitely want to control how snippets are pulled in and used. I
wouldn't turn on general XML includes as we'll end up with the mess
we had in Maven 1.x.
I must admit, that I
On 9/10/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We definitely want to control how snippets are pulled in and used. I
> wouldn't turn on general XML includes as we'll end up with the mess
> we had in Maven 1.x.
I must admit, that I can't follow you here. What to you mean by "the
mess we had
Jason van Zyl pisze:
>
> On 10 Sep 07, at 8:51 AM 10 Sep 07, Grzegorz Kossakowski wrote:
>
>> Jochen Wiedmann pisze:
>>> On 9/10/07, Grzegorz Kossakowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Your requirement is rather vague for me.
>>>
>>> Let's start with the most simple Filter: Extrapolation. An
On 9/10/07, Grzegorz Kossakowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing. I have in mind selecting
> some portion of
> included XML snippet by applying XPointer/XPath query on it.
> What do you mean by filtering here?
That we would want to change the incl
On 10 Sep 07, at 8:51 AM 10 Sep 07, Grzegorz Kossakowski wrote:
Jochen Wiedmann pisze:
On 9/10/07, Grzegorz Kossakowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Your requirement is rather vague for me.
Let's start with the most simple Filter: Extrapolation. And let's not
forget, that Filtering is very u
Jochen Wiedmann pisze:
> On 9/10/07, Grzegorz Kossakowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Your requirement is rather vague for me.
>
> Let's start with the most simple Filter: Extrapolation. And let's not
> forget, that Filtering is very underdeveloped, compared to Ants
> Filtering.
I'm not sure
On 9/10/07, Grzegorz Kossakowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your requirement is rather vague for me.
Let's start with the most simple Filter: Extrapolation. And let's not
forget, that Filtering is very underdeveloped, compared to Ants
Filtering.
--
Look, that's why there's rules, understand
Jochen Wiedmann pisze:
> Because of this:
>
>>> - Powerful: Could be enhanced to do filtering or stuff like that.
Your requirement is rather vague for me.
Do you mean filtering of included XML? If so, XInclude already supports it in
very powerful way - by
using XPointer for this.
--
Grzegorz K
On 9/10/07, Grzegorz Kossakowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not use existing solutions, then? I mean, XInclude standard that is
> supported by XML parsers and
> would not clutter Maven's code.
Because of this:
> > - Powerful: Could be enhanced to do filtering or stuff like that.
--
Look
Jochen Wiedmann pisze:
>
> I'd basically like to use "snippets", or whatever you call them. However, if
> you restrict them to a "plugin pack", then I'd consider them as half baken.
> There are lots of other places where one could use them. For example, a user
> on [EMAIL PROTECTED] has recently p
xml,
and/or profile.xml. (At least I would hope, that there is "the code" for
each of these ... :-)
- Powerful: Could be enhanced to do filtering or stuff like that.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-poll--Need-for-plugin-packs---mixins-for-plugins-tf436650
Don't forget that successive versions of some plugins may break
backward compatibility and other such bad practices. Locking everyone
in a large organization down to one version of such a plugin could be
very limiting, since these things have to be phased in.
Also, I don't think we can pret
On Sep 1, 2007, at 10:53 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
[ X] (A) Having a way to include a set of plugins in one small POM
fragment would be a useful feature to have (if you have a use case
other than the already stated "standard plugins", please specify)
[ ] (B) Pasting a snippet in from the web
Andrew Williams pisze:
> E)
> Specifying a a list of plugin versions in a pom snippet (better than
> plugin packs) is (as I see it) adding maintenance overhead that could
> become intrusive in some organisations.
> Why can we not just have a plugin (that maven suggests running if it
> seems missing
Wendy Smoak wrote on Monday, September 03, 2007 7:41 PM:
> On 9/1/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Like the other poll, I'd like to hear from as many people as possible
>> their opinion this topic (even if you just want to say '0' so we
>> know where you stand).
>>
>> [ ] (A) Havin
On 04/09/2007, at 1:30 AM, Aaron Metzger wrote:
2007/9/2, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Like the other poll, I'd like to hear from as many people as
possible
their opinion this topic (even if you just want to say '0' so we
know
where you stand).
[ ] (A) Having a way to include a set
A
--
Olivier
-Message d'origine-
De : Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : dimanche 2 septembre 2007 04:54
À : Maven Developers List
Objet : [poll] Need for plugin packs / mixins for plugins
Like the other poll, I'd like to hear from as many people as poss
(C)
-Lukas
Brett Porter wrote:
Like the other poll, I'd like to hear from as many people as possible
their opinion this topic (even if you just want to say '0' so we know
where you stand).
[ ] (A) Having a way to include a set of plugins in one small POM
fragment would be a useful featur
A - rnaud
On 03/09/07, Hervé BOUTEMY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> B
> need to be able to override version of a plugin that is in a plugin pack, then
> solve conflicts between different plugin packs
> I think that what seems to be really cool in the first place will be more
> difficult to maintain
On 9/1/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Like the other poll, I'd like to hear from as many people as possible
> their opinion this topic (even if you just want to say '0' so we know
> where you stand).
>
> [ ] (A) Having a way to include a set of plugins in one small POM
> fragment wou
B
need to be able to override version of a plugin that is in a plugin pack, then
solve conflicts between different plugin packs
I think that what seems to be really cool in the first place will be more
difficult to maintain that it seems
Hervé
Le dimanche 2 septembre 2007, Brett Porter a écrit
2007/9/2, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Like the other poll, I'd like to hear from as many people as possible
their opinion this topic (even if you just want to say '0' so we know
where you stand).
[ ] (A) Having a way to include a set of plugins in one small POM
fragment would be a useful
On Sep 2, 2007, at 8:30 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
What are the real requirements?
They are:
1) An easy way to get a set of stable plugins that work together
2) To easily see what versions are contained in this set
3) To easily change or augment what is in this set
The current mechanism + toolin
E)
Specifying a a list of plugin versions in a pom snippet (better than
plugin packs) is (as I see it) adding maintenance overhead that could
become intrusive in some organisations.
Why can we not just have a plugin (that maven suggests running if it
seems missing version numbers) that updat
> [ ] (A) Having a way to include a set of plugins in one small POM
> [ ] (B) Pasting a snippet in from the web site is sufficient
> [X] (D) Undecided
I personally don't mind pasting a snippet and I think this is a good
idea no matter what happens -- perhaps it could be included in the
release not
What are the real requirements?
They are:
1) An easy way to get a set of stable plugins that work together
2) To easily see what versions are contained in this set
3) To easily change or augment what is in this set
The current mechanism + toolings works. I know what's going to happen
with plu
A
Raphaël
2007/9/2, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Like the other poll, I'd like to hear from as many people as possible
> their opinion this topic (even if you just want to say '0' so we know
> where you stand).
>
> [ ] (A) Having a way to include a set of plugins in one small POM
> fragmen
A
Brett Porter wrote:
Like the other poll, I'd like to hear from as many people as possible
their opinion this topic (even if you just want to say '0' so we know
where you stand).
[ ] (A) Having a way to include a set of plugins in one small POM
fragment would be a useful feature to have (
Like the other poll, I'd like to hear from as many people as possible
their opinion this topic (even if you just want to say '0' so we know
where you stand).
[ ] (A) Having a way to include a set of plugins in one small POM
fragment would be a useful feature to have (if you have a use case
29 matches
Mail list logo
