> Just my 2 cents as a Maven evangelist in a big private company. Even if
> Maven is around for years now, basic endusers just start to get
> accustomed to pom.xml and Maven philosophy (really! people are far slowest to
> change than in OpenSource project team).
>
> Please, please don't mess every
So I agree that it is a valid concern, and there needs to be a
canonical format (which will probably be XML) which all artifacts are
saved as - but in my source tree, it should be entirely possible to
have an alternate way to specify, since often I've found that XML-
hatred is a barrier to M
On 2009-09-04, at 10:59 PM, Christian Edward Gruber wrote:
So I agree that it is a valid concern, and there needs to be a
canonical format (which will probably be XML) which all artifacts
are saved as - but in my source tree, it should be entirely possible
to have an alternate way to speci
Who said anything about a reasonable person? :) I don't have such a
hatred - I'm quite used to it, but it has come up in nearly every
client in the last 3 years - not as a final or deal-breaking barrier
to adoption, but a barrier nonetheless.
I'm happy to support it - I just need a seam or
much dismissed them
as I like using XML myself.
Jason
From: Christian Edward Gruber [christianedwardgru...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 2:29 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Re : non-xml poms in 3.x
Who said anything about a reaso
ike using XML myself.
>
> Jason
>
> From: Christian Edward Gruber [christianedwardgru...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 2:29 PM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: Re : non-xml poms in 3.x
>
> Who said anything abo
tian Edward Gruber [christianedwardgru...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 2:29 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Re : non-xml poms in 3.x
Who said anything about a reasonable person? :) I don't have such a
hatred - I'm quite used to it, but it has come up in nearly every
From: paulus.benedic...@gmail.com [paulus.benedic...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Paul Benedict [pbened...@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 3:05 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Re : non-xml poms in 3.x
Yes, the XML is verbose, and tooling helps but I think most people write it
jason.chaf...@zilliontv.tv]
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 3:27 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: RE: Re : non-xml poms in 3.x
I like the idea of having some things as attributes.
See the following links on information on when to use attributes and when to
use elements.
http://w
.
Regards,
Julien
- Message d'origine
> De : Jason Chaffee
> À : Maven Developers List
> Envoyé le : Samedi, 5 Septembre 2009, 1h00mn 02s
> Objet : RE: Re : non-xml poms in 3.x
>
> FYI, I know that in the past Resin supported both Elements and attributes in
>
On 05/09/2009, at 6:25 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
Just my 2 cents as a Maven evangelist in a big private company.
Even if
Maven is around for years now, basic endusers just start to get
accustomed to pom.xml and Maven philosophy (really! people are far
slowest to change than in OpenSource project
On Sep 7, 2009, at 6:19 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 05/09/2009, at 6:25 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
Just my 2 cents as a Maven evangelist in a big private company.
Even if
Maven is around for years now, basic endusers just start to get
accustomed to pom.xml and Maven philosophy (really! people are
On Sep 7, 2009, at 9:52 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
At one point the pom was going to be "redone" so that it wasn't
going to be completely compatible. Later, I think the decision was
made to keep it compatible. At one point there was support for
having different pom formats but I'm not really su
On 2009-09-08, at 4:12 AM, Christian Edward Gruber wrote:
On Sep 7, 2009, at 9:52 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
At one point the pom was going to be "redone" so that it wasn't
going to be completely compatible. Later, I think the decision was
made to keep it compatible. At one point there was sup
So - 2 points.
1. Who's saying you have to actually have YAML poms IN the maven
project - as long as I can find a way to (through autodiscovery of
some mechanism) not have to do crazy wrappers. You said these
extension points would be there, so I'm happy. (do note the smiley)
2. Who's
For that to work you'd basically need to be able to round-trip between the
yaml format and the xml format...
otherwise the tooling in IDEs and in plugins like versions-maven-plugin,
maven-release-plugin, etc will make changes and very soon the yaml file is
just the seed file and bares no resemblan
On 2009-09-08, at 9:49 AM, Christian Edward Gruber wrote:
So - 2 points.
1. Who's saying you have to actually have YAML poms IN the maven
project - as long as I can find a way to (through autodiscovery of
some mechanism) not have to do crazy wrappers. You said these
extension points wo
Ok. Sounds workable.
Christian.
On Sep 8, 2009, at 4:00 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 2009-09-08, at 9:49 AM, Christian Edward Gruber wrote:
So - 2 points.
1. Who's saying you have to actually have YAML poms IN the maven
project - as long as I can find a way to (through autodiscovery of
nsider a "big" change for endusers.
Still my 2 cents.
Regards,
Julien
- Message d'origine
De : Jason Chaffee
À : Maven Developers List
Envoyé le : Samedi, 5 Septembre 2009, 1h00mn 02s
Objet : RE: Re : non-xml poms in 3.x
FYI, I know that in the past Resin
ts.
Regards,
Julien
- Message d'origine
De : Jason Chaffee
À : Maven Developers List
Envoyé le : Samedi, 5 Septembre 2009, 1h00mn 02s
Objet : RE: Re : non-xml poms in 3.x
FYI, I know that in the past Resin supported both Elements and
attributes in
it's config XML. It w
ly [stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 5:45 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Cc: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Re : Re : non-xml poms in 3.x
personally, given the fun with rewriting XML at the moment, (see
versions maven plugin) I would prefer to just have the curr
re supports the ability for someone to do it at their own
risk.
kind regards,
Jason
From: Stephen Connolly [stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 5:45 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Cc: Maven Developers List
Subject
De : Jason Chaffee
À : Maven Developers List
Envoyé le : Samedi, 5 Septembre 2009, 1h00mn 02s
Objet : RE: Re : non-xml poms in 3.x
FYI, I know that in the past Resin supported both Elements and
attributes in
it's config XML. It was really neat. If you preferred one over
the
he ability for someone to do it at their own
>> risk.
>>
>>
>> kind regards,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Stephen Connolly [stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, September 05, 200
om: Stephen Connolly [stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 5:45 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Cc: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Re : Re : non-xml poms in 3.x
personally, given the fun with rewriting XML at the moment, (see
versions maven plugin) I would prefer to just
e, but rather the
architecture supports the ability for someone to do it at their own
risk.
kind regards,
Jason
From: Stephen Connolly [stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 5:45 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Cc: Maven Dev
m]
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 5:45 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Cc: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Re : Re : non-xml poms in 3.x
personally, given the fun with rewriting XML at the moment, (see
versions maven plugin) I would prefer to just have the current XML
format. adding more formats m
good clean API's, then power users can
>>>>> basically do whatever they want easily. Therefore, you wouldn't
>>>>> be
>>>>> directly supporting this feature...but by creating a clean
>>>>> injectable architecture you would support w
Stephen Connolly [stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 5:45 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Cc: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Re : Re : non-xml poms in 3.x
personally, given the fun with rewriting XML at the moment, (see
versions maven plugin) I would prefer to just have th
to do it at their
>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>> risk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> kind regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>&
On 08/09/2009, at 8:06 AM, Jason Chaffee wrote:
I understand that you probably don't want to commit to a date or cause
undue expectations from anyone on this list, so let me ask it in a
slight differently way.
Do you think it "might" be possible that we see a beta 3.x in 2009?
One reason I ask
On 2009-09-08, at 3:11 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 08/09/2009, at 8:06 AM, Jason Chaffee wrote:
I understand that you probably don't want to commit to a date or
cause
undue expectations from anyone on this list, so let me ask it in a
slight differently way.
Do you think it "might" be possib
32 matches
Mail list logo
