"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]
