Comments inline below.. > On Apr 20, 2015, at 10:44 AM, Ron Wheeler <rwhee...@artifact-software.com> > wrote: > > RDF sounds like overkill. There is no reason why a comment could not be a URI > but I am not sure that you want to mandate that. > Use Case 1 link to web resource > <dependency comment="http://blog.artifact-software.com/tech/?p=191 > <http://blog.artifact-software.com/tech/?p=191>”>
Having dealt with this sort of thing on other projects, linked comments sound
good at first but ultimately become a very bad idea IMO. This creates a
non-idempotent and brittle link scenario where the comment url is out of synch
with the content in the POM.
> Use Case 2 lots of in-line deatils
> <dependency comment="added to support PDF output">
> <groupId>org.apache.xmlgraphics</groupId>
> <artifactId>fop</artifactId>
> <version comment="Can't use version 2.x see FOP-3423">1.0</version>
> <optional comment="set to true to get text in black on
> white">true</optional>
> </dependency>
>
> Use case 3 reference to a full explanation in the description
> There is also the description tag which could be used to hold more details
> <dependency comment="See note 2 in description tag.”>
I’m not sure I’m seeing a difference between UC 2 & 3. Unless you mean
something more like this for UC 3:
<dependency comment_ref=“note2”> <!— or some XPath expression —>
...
<description comment_refid=“note2” comment=“This version doesn’t work
for the following reasons:….”>
> IDE's could show comment attributes on tags in the POM editor or in XML
> outline views.
>
> It seems to be a lot more flexible than adding comment tags and probably less
> intrusive to existing plug-ins.
>
I think comment tags should still be included. Inline is great for short
descriptions, but nothing really beats having a tag element that doesn’t
require a lot of XML escaping like an attribute would need.
- Jim
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
