|
»
»
Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
|
View:
New views
20 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
| < Prev | 1 - 2 | Next > |
 |
Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
by Matt Raible-3
::
Rate this Message:
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: <dependency> <groupId>springframework</groupId> <artifactId>spring</artifactId> <version>1.2.6</version> </dependency> After: <dep:artifact name="org/springframework/spring" version="1.2.6"/> Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? <dependency groupId="org.springframework" 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 (<ref> and <value>) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. Here's an example of my simplified version: <dependencies> <dependency groupId="cargo" artifactId="cargo" version="0.6" scope="test"/> <dependency groupId="commons-lang" artifactId="commons-lang" version="2.0"/> <dependency groupId="commons-logging" artifactId="commons-logging" version="1.0.4"/> <dependency groupId="displaytag" artifactId="displaytag" version="1.0" scope="runtime"> <exclusions> <exclusion artifactId="xalan" groupId="xalan"/> </exclusions> </dependency> <dependency groupId="uk.ltd.getahead" artifactId="dwr" version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> <dependency groupId="org.hibernate" artifactId="hibernate" version="3.0.5"> <exclusions> <exclusion artifactId="jta" groupId="javax.transaction"/> </exclusions> </dependency> <dependency groupId="geronimo-spec" artifactId="geronimo-spec-jta" version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> <dependency groupId="jmock" artifactId="jmock" version="1.0.1" scope="test"/> <dependency groupId="junit" artifactId="junit" version="3.8.1" scope="test"/> <dependency groupId="jwebunit" artifactId="jwebunit" version="1.2" scope="test"/> <dependency groupId="httpunit" artifactId="httpunit" version="1.6" scope="test"> <exclusions> <exclusion artifactId="js" groupId="rhino"/> </exclusions> </dependency> <dependency groupId="log4j" artifactId="log4j" version="1.2.11"/> <dependency groupId="postgresql" artifactId="postgresql" version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="servlet-api" version="2.4" scope="provided"/> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="jstl" version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> <dependency groupId="taglibs" artifactId="standard" version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> <dependency groupId="opensymphony" artifactId="sitemesh" version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> <dependency groupId="springmodules" artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" scope="runtime"/> <dependency groupId="springframework" artifactId="spring" version="1.2.6"/> <dependency groupId="springframework" artifactId="spring-mock" version="1.2.6" scope="test"> <exclusions> <exclusion artifactId="spring-jdbc" groupId="springframework"/> <exclusion artifactId="spring-web" groupId="springframework"/> </exclusions> </dependency> </dependencies> Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide some motivation. ;-) <dependencies> <dependency org="apache" name="commons-lang" rev="2.0" /> <dependency org="apache" name="commons-cli" rev="1.0" /> </dependencies> Matt --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
by allan ramirez-4
::
Rate this Message:
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: > > <dependency> > <groupId>springframework</groupId> > <artifactId>spring</artifactId> > <version>1.2.6</version> > </dependency> > >After: > ><dep:artifact name="org/springframework/spring" version="1.2.6"/> > >Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? > ><dependency groupId="org.springframework" 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 (<ref> and ><value>) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. > >Here's an example of my simplified version: > > <dependencies> > <dependency groupId="cargo" artifactId="cargo" version="0.6" scope="test"/> > <dependency groupId="commons-lang" artifactId="commons-lang" version="2.0"/> > <dependency groupId="commons-logging" artifactId="commons-logging" >version="1.0.4"/> > <dependency groupId="displaytag" artifactId="displaytag" >version="1.0" scope="runtime"> > <exclusions> > <exclusion artifactId="xalan" groupId="xalan"/> > </exclusions> > </dependency> > <dependency groupId="uk.ltd.getahead" artifactId="dwr" >version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> > <dependency groupId="org.hibernate" artifactId="hibernate" version="3.0.5"> > <exclusions> > <exclusion artifactId="jta" groupId="javax.transaction"/> > </exclusions> > </dependency> > <dependency groupId="geronimo-spec" artifactId="geronimo-spec-jta" >version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> > <dependency groupId="jmock" artifactId="jmock" version="1.0.1" >scope="test"/> > <dependency groupId="junit" artifactId="junit" version="3.8.1" >scope="test"/> > <dependency groupId="jwebunit" artifactId="jwebunit" version="1.2" >scope="test"/> > <dependency groupId="httpunit" artifactId="httpunit" version="1.6" >scope="test"> > <exclusions> > <exclusion artifactId="js" groupId="rhino"/> > </exclusions> > </dependency> > <dependency groupId="log4j" artifactId="log4j" version="1.2.11"/> > <dependency groupId="postgresql" artifactId="postgresql" >version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> > <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="servlet-api" >version="2.4" scope="provided"/> > <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="jstl" >version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > <dependency groupId="taglibs" artifactId="standard" >version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > <dependency groupId="opensymphony" artifactId="sitemesh" >version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> > <dependency groupId="springmodules" >artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" scope="runtime"/> > <dependency groupId="springframework" artifactId="spring" version="1.2.6"/> > <dependency groupId="springframework" artifactId="spring-mock" >version="1.2.6" scope="test"> > <exclusions> > <exclusion artifactId="spring-jdbc" groupId="springframework"/> > <exclusion artifactId="spring-web" groupId="springframework"/> > </exclusions> > </dependency> > </dependencies> > >Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide some >motivation. ;-) > > <dependencies> > <dependency org="apache" name="commons-lang" rev="2.0" /> > <dependency org="apache" name="commons-cli" rev="1.0" /> > </dependencies> > >Matt > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... >For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
by John Casey (Yahoo!)
::
Rate this Message:
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: >> >> <dependency> >> <groupId>springframework</groupId> >> <artifactId>spring</artifactId> >> <version>1.2.6</version> >> </dependency> >> >> After: >> >> <dep:artifact name="org/springframework/spring" version="1.2.6"/> >> >> Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? >> >> <dependency groupId="org.springframework" 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 (<ref> and >> <value>) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. >> >> Here's an example of my simplified version: >> >> <dependencies> >> <dependency groupId="cargo" artifactId="cargo" version="0.6" >> scope="test"/> >> <dependency groupId="commons-lang" artifactId="commons-lang" >> version="2.0"/> >> <dependency groupId="commons-logging" artifactId="commons-logging" >> version="1.0.4"/> >> <dependency groupId="displaytag" artifactId="displaytag" >> version="1.0" scope="runtime"> >> <exclusions> >> <exclusion artifactId="xalan" groupId="xalan"/> >> </exclusions> >> </dependency> >> <dependency groupId="uk.ltd.getahead" artifactId="dwr" >> version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> >> <dependency groupId="org.hibernate" artifactId="hibernate" >> version="3.0.5"> >> <exclusions> >> <exclusion artifactId="jta" groupId="javax.transaction"/> >> </exclusions> >> </dependency> >> <dependency groupId="geronimo-spec" artifactId="geronimo-spec-jta" >> version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> >> <dependency groupId="jmock" artifactId="jmock" version="1.0.1" >> scope="test"/> >> <dependency groupId="junit" artifactId="junit" version="3.8.1" >> scope="test"/> >> <dependency groupId="jwebunit" artifactId="jwebunit" version="1.2" >> scope="test"/> >> <dependency groupId="httpunit" artifactId="httpunit" version="1.6" >> scope="test"> >> <exclusions> >> <exclusion artifactId="js" groupId="rhino"/> >> </exclusions> >> </dependency> >> <dependency groupId="log4j" artifactId="log4j" version="1.2.11"/> >> <dependency groupId="postgresql" artifactId="postgresql" >> version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> >> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="servlet-api" >> version="2.4" scope="provided"/> >> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="jstl" >> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> >> <dependency groupId="taglibs" artifactId="standard" >> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> >> <dependency groupId="opensymphony" artifactId="sitemesh" >> version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> >> <dependency groupId="springmodules" >> artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" scope="runtime"/> >> <dependency groupId="springframework" artifactId="spring" >> version="1.2.6"/> >> <dependency groupId="springframework" artifactId="spring-mock" >> version="1.2.6" scope="test"> >> <exclusions> >> <exclusion artifactId="spring-jdbc" groupId="springframework"/> >> <exclusion artifactId="spring-web" groupId="springframework"/> >> </exclusions> >> </dependency> >> </dependencies> >> >> Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide some >> motivation. ;-) >> >> <dependencies> >> <dependency org="apache" name="commons-lang" rev="2.0" /> >> <dependency org="apache" name="commons-cli" rev="1.0" /> >> </dependencies> >> >> Matt >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... >> >> >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
by Chris Berry
::
Rate this Message:
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 <jdcasey1779@...> 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: > >> > >> <dependency> > >> <groupId>springframework</groupId> > >> <artifactId>spring</artifactId> > >> <version>1.2.6</version> > >> </dependency> > >> > >> After: > >> > >> <dep:artifact name="org/springframework/spring" version="1.2.6"/> > >> > >> Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? > >> > >> <dependency groupId="org.springframework" 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 (<ref> and > >> <value>) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. > >> > >> Here's an example of my simplified version: > >> > >> <dependencies> > >> <dependency groupId="cargo" artifactId="cargo" version="0.6" > >> scope="test"/> > >> <dependency groupId="commons-lang" artifactId="commons-lang" > >> version="2.0"/> > >> <dependency groupId="commons-logging" artifactId="commons-logging" > >> version="1.0.4"/> > >> <dependency groupId="displaytag" artifactId="displaytag" > >> version="1.0" scope="runtime"> > >> <exclusions> > >> <exclusion artifactId="xalan" groupId="xalan"/> > >> </exclusions> > >> </dependency> > >> <dependency groupId="uk.ltd.getahead" artifactId="dwr" > >> version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> > >> <dependency groupId="org.hibernate" artifactId="hibernate" > >> version="3.0.5"> > >> <exclusions> > >> <exclusion artifactId="jta" groupId="javax.transaction"/> > >> </exclusions> > >> </dependency> > >> <dependency groupId="geronimo-spec" artifactId="geronimo-spec-jta" > >> version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> > >> <dependency groupId="jmock" artifactId="jmock" version="1.0.1" > >> scope="test"/> > >> <dependency groupId="junit" artifactId="junit" version="3.8.1" > >> scope="test"/> > >> <dependency groupId="jwebunit" artifactId="jwebunit" version="1.2" > >> scope="test"/> > >> <dependency groupId="httpunit" artifactId="httpunit" version="1.6" > >> scope="test"> > >> <exclusions> > >> <exclusion artifactId="js" groupId="rhino"/> > >> </exclusions> > >> </dependency> > >> <dependency groupId="log4j" artifactId="log4j" version="1.2.11"/> > >> <dependency groupId="postgresql" artifactId="postgresql" > >> version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> > >> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="servlet-api" > >> version="2.4" scope="provided"/> > >> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="jstl" > >> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > >> <dependency groupId="taglibs" artifactId="standard" > >> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > >> <dependency groupId="opensymphony" artifactId="sitemesh" > >> version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> > >> <dependency groupId="springmodules" > >> artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" scope="runtime"/> > >> <dependency groupId="springframework" artifactId="spring" > >> version="1.2.6"/> > >> <dependency groupId="springframework" artifactId="spring-mock" > >> version="1.2.6" scope="test"> > >> <exclusions> > >> <exclusion artifactId="spring-jdbc" groupId="springframework"/> > >> <exclusion artifactId="spring-web" groupId="springframework"/> > >> </exclusions> > >> </dependency> > >> </dependencies> > >> > >> Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide some > >> motivation. ;-) > >> > >> <dependencies> > >> <dependency org="apache" name="commons-lang" rev="2.0" /> > >> <dependency org="apache" name="commons-cli" rev="1.0" /> > >> </dependencies> > >> > >> Matt > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > |
|
|
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
by Jochen Wiedmann
::
Rate this Message:
On 12/15/05, Chris Berry <chriswberry@...> 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: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
by mkleint-3
::
Rate this Message:
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 <jdcasey1779@...> 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: >>>> >>>> <dependency> >>>> <groupId>springframework</groupId> >>>> <artifactId>spring</artifactId> >>>> <version>1.2.6</version> >>>> </dependency> >>>> >>>> After: >>>> >>>> <dep:artifact name="org/springframework/spring" version="1.2.6"/> >>>> >>>> Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? >>>> >>>> <dependency groupId="org.springframework" 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 (<ref> and >>>> <value>) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. >>>> >>>> Here's an example of my simplified version: >>>> >>>> <dependencies> >>>> <dependency groupId="cargo" artifactId="cargo" version="0.6" >>>> scope="test"/> >>>> <dependency groupId="commons-lang" artifactId="commons-lang" >>>> version="2.0"/> >>>> <dependency groupId="commons-logging" artifactId="commons-logging" >>>> version="1.0.4"/> >>>> <dependency groupId="displaytag" artifactId="displaytag" >>>> version="1.0" scope="runtime"> >>>> <exclusions> >>>> <exclusion artifactId="xalan" groupId="xalan"/> >>>> </exclusions> >>>> </dependency> >>>> <dependency groupId="uk.ltd.getahead" artifactId="dwr" >>>> version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> >>>> <dependency groupId="org.hibernate" artifactId="hibernate" >>>> version="3.0.5"> >>>> <exclusions> >>>> <exclusion artifactId="jta" groupId="javax.transaction"/> >>>> </exclusions> >>>> </dependency> >>>> <dependency groupId="geronimo-spec" artifactId="geronimo-spec-jta" >>>> version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> >>>> <dependency groupId="jmock" artifactId="jmock" version="1.0.1" >>>> scope="test"/> >>>> <dependency groupId="junit" artifactId="junit" version="3.8.1" >>>> scope="test"/> >>>> <dependency groupId="jwebunit" artifactId="jwebunit" version="1.2" >>>> scope="test"/> >>>> <dependency groupId="httpunit" artifactId="httpunit" version="1.6" >>>> scope="test"> >>>> <exclusions> >>>> <exclusion artifactId="js" groupId="rhino"/> >>>> </exclusions> >>>> </dependency> >>>> <dependency groupId="log4j" artifactId="log4j" version="1.2.11"/> >>>> <dependency groupId="postgresql" artifactId="postgresql" >>>> version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> >>>> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="servlet-api" >>>> version="2.4" scope="provided"/> >>>> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="jstl" >>>> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> >>>> <dependency groupId="taglibs" artifactId="standard" >>>> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> >>>> <dependency groupId="opensymphony" artifactId="sitemesh" >>>> version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> >>>> <dependency groupId="springmodules" >>>> artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" scope="runtime"/> >>>> <dependency groupId="springframework" artifactId="spring" >>>> version="1.2.6"/> >>>> <dependency groupId="springframework" artifactId="spring-mock" >>>> version="1.2.6" scope="test"> >>>> <exclusions> >>>> <exclusion artifactId="spring-jdbc" groupId="springframework"/> >>>> <exclusion artifactId="spring-web" groupId="springframework"/> >>>> </exclusions> >>>> </dependency> >>>> </dependencies> >>>> >>>> Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide some >>>> motivation. ;-) >>>> >>>> <dependencies> >>>> <dependency org="apache" name="commons-lang" rev="2.0" /> >>>> <dependency org="apache" name="commons-cli" rev="1.0" /> >>>> </dependencies> >>>> >>>> Matt >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... >> >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
by Matt Raible-3
::
Rate this Message:
On 12/15/05, Milos Kleint <Milos.Kleint@...> 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 <jdcasey1779@...> 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: > >>>> > >>>> <dependency> > >>>> <groupId>springframework</groupId> > >>>> <artifactId>spring</artifactId> > >>>> <version>1.2.6</version> > >>>> </dependency> > >>>> > >>>> After: > >>>> > >>>> <dep:artifact name="org/springframework/spring" version="1.2.6"/> > >>>> > >>>> Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? > >>>> > >>>> <dependency groupId="org.springframework" 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 (<ref> and > >>>> <value>) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. > >>>> > >>>> Here's an example of my simplified version: > >>>> > >>>> <dependencies> > >>>> <dependency groupId="cargo" artifactId="cargo" version="0.6" > >>>> scope="test"/> > >>>> <dependency groupId="commons-lang" artifactId="commons-lang" > >>>> version="2.0"/> > >>>> <dependency groupId="commons-logging" artifactId="commons-logging" > >>>> version="1.0.4"/> > >>>> <dependency groupId="displaytag" artifactId="displaytag" > >>>> version="1.0" scope="runtime"> > >>>> <exclusions> > >>>> <exclusion artifactId="xalan" groupId="xalan"/> > >>>> </exclusions> > >>>> </dependency> > >>>> <dependency groupId="uk.ltd.getahead" artifactId="dwr" > >>>> version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> > >>>> <dependency groupId="org.hibernate" artifactId="hibernate" > >>>> version="3.0.5"> > >>>> <exclusions> > >>>> <exclusion artifactId="jta" groupId="javax.transaction"/> > >>>> </exclusions> > >>>> </dependency> > >>>> <dependency groupId="geronimo-spec" artifactId="geronimo-spec-jta" > >>>> version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> > >>>> <dependency groupId="jmock" artifactId="jmock" version="1.0.1" > >>>> scope="test"/> > >>>> <dependency groupId="junit" artifactId="junit" version="3.8.1" > >>>> scope="test"/> > >>>> <dependency groupId="jwebunit" artifactId="jwebunit" version="1.2" > >>>> scope="test"/> > >>>> <dependency groupId="httpunit" artifactId="httpunit" version="1.6" > >>>> scope="test"> > >>>> <exclusions> > >>>> <exclusion artifactId="js" groupId="rhino"/> > >>>> </exclusions> > >>>> </dependency> > >>>> <dependency groupId="log4j" artifactId="log4j" version="1.2.11"/> > >>>> <dependency groupId="postgresql" artifactId="postgresql" > >>>> version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> > >>>> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="servlet-api" > >>>> version="2.4" scope="provided"/> > >>>> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="jstl" > >>>> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > >>>> <dependency groupId="taglibs" artifactId="standard" > >>>> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > >>>> <dependency groupId="opensymphony" artifactId="sitemesh" > >>>> version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> > >>>> <dependency groupId="springmodules" > >>>> artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" scope="runtime"/> > >>>> <dependency groupId="springframework" artifactId="spring" > >>>> version="1.2.6"/> > >>>> <dependency groupId="springframework" artifactId="spring-mock" > >>>> version="1.2.6" scope="test"> > >>>> <exclusions> > >>>> <exclusion artifactId="spring-jdbc" groupId="springframework"/> > >>>> <exclusion artifactId="spring-web" groupId="springframework"/> > >>>> </exclusions> > >>>> </dependency> > >>>> </dependencies> > >>>> > >>>> Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide some > >>>> motivation. ;-) > >>>> > >>>> <dependencies> > >>>> <dependency org="apache" name="commons-lang" rev="2.0" /> > >>>> <dependency org="apache" name="commons-cli" rev="1.0" /> > >>>> </dependencies> > >>>> > >>>> Matt > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > >>> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
by Chris Berry
::
Rate this Message:
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 <mraible@...> wrote: > > On 12/15/05, Milos Kleint <Milos.Kleint@...> 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 <jdcasey1779@...> 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: > > >>>> > > >>>> <dependency> > > >>>> <groupId>springframework</groupId> > > >>>> <artifactId>spring</artifactId> > > >>>> <version>1.2.6</version> > > >>>> </dependency> > > >>>> > > >>>> After: > > >>>> > > >>>> <dep:artifact name="org/springframework/spring" version="1.2.6"/> > > >>>> > > >>>> Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? > > >>>> > > >>>> <dependency groupId="org.springframework" 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 (<ref> > and > > >>>> <value>) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. > > >>>> > > >>>> Here's an example of my simplified version: > > >>>> > > >>>> <dependencies> > > >>>> <dependency groupId="cargo" artifactId="cargo" version="0.6" > > >>>> scope="test"/> > > >>>> <dependency groupId="commons-lang" artifactId="commons-lang" > > >>>> version="2.0"/> > > >>>> <dependency groupId="commons-logging" > artifactId="commons-logging" > > >>>> version="1.0.4"/> > > >>>> <dependency groupId="displaytag" artifactId="displaytag" > > >>>> version="1.0" scope="runtime"> > > >>>> <exclusions> > > >>>> <exclusion artifactId="xalan" groupId="xalan"/> > > >>>> </exclusions> > > >>>> </dependency> > > >>>> <dependency groupId="uk.ltd.getahead" artifactId="dwr" > > >>>> version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> > > >>>> <dependency groupId="org.hibernate" artifactId="hibernate" > > >>>> version="3.0.5"> > > >>>> <exclusions> > > >>>> <exclusion artifactId="jta" groupId="javax.transaction"/> > > >>>> </exclusions> > > >>>> </dependency> > > >>>> <dependency groupId="geronimo-spec" > artifactId="geronimo-spec-jta" > > >>>> version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> > > >>>> <dependency groupId="jmock" artifactId="jmock" version="1.0.1" > > >>>> scope="test"/> > > >>>> <dependency groupId="junit" artifactId="junit" version="3.8.1" > > >>>> scope="test"/> > > >>>> <dependency groupId="jwebunit" artifactId="jwebunit" version=" > 1.2" > > >>>> scope="test"/> > > >>>> <dependency groupId="httpunit" artifactId="httpunit" version=" > 1.6" > > >>>> scope="test"> > > >>>> <exclusions> > > >>>> <exclusion artifactId="js" groupId="rhino"/> > > >>>> </exclusions> > > >>>> </dependency> > > >>>> <dependency groupId="log4j" artifactId="log4j" version="1.2.11 > "/> > > >>>> <dependency groupId="postgresql" artifactId="postgresql" > > >>>> version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> > > >>>> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="servlet-api" > > >>>> version="2.4" scope="provided"/> > > >>>> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="jstl" > > >>>> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > > >>>> <dependency groupId="taglibs" artifactId="standard" > > >>>> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > > >>>> <dependency groupId="opensymphony" artifactId="sitemesh" > > >>>> version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> > > >>>> <dependency groupId="springmodules" > > >>>> artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" > scope="runtime"/> > > >>>> <dependency groupId="springframework" artifactId="spring" > > >>>> version="1.2.6"/> > > >>>> <dependency groupId="springframework" artifactId="spring-mock" > > >>>> version="1.2.6" scope="test"> > > >>>> <exclusions> > > >>>> <exclusion artifactId="spring-jdbc" > groupId="springframework"/> > > >>>> <exclusion artifactId="spring-web" > groupId="springframework"/> > > >>>> </exclusions> > > >>>> </dependency> > > >>>> </dependencies> > > >>>> > > >>>> Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide > some > > >>>> motivation. ;-) > > >>>> > > >>>> <dependencies> > > >>>> <dependency org="apache" name="commons-lang" rev="2.0" /> > > >>>> <dependency org="apache" name="commons-cli" rev="1.0" /> > > >>>> </dependencies> > > >>>> > > >>>> Matt > > >>>> > > >>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> > > >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > >>> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > |
|
|
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
by Cservenak Tamas
::
Rate this Message:
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 <jdcasey1779@...> 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: >>>>> >>>>> <dependency> >>>>> <groupId>springframework</groupId> >>>>> <artifactId>spring</artifactId> >>>>> <version>1.2.6</version> >>>>> </dependency> >>>>> >>>>> After: >>>>> >>>>> <dep:artifact name="org/springframework/spring" version="1.2.6"/> >>>>> >>>>> Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? >>>>> >>>>> <dependency groupId="org.springframework" 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 (<ref> and >>>>> <value>) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. >>>>> >>>>> Here's an example of my simplified version: >>>>> >>>>> <dependencies> >>>>> <dependency groupId="cargo" artifactId="cargo" version="0.6" >>>>> scope="test"/> >>>>> <dependency groupId="commons-lang" artifactId="commons-lang" >>>>> version="2.0"/> >>>>> <dependency groupId="commons-logging" artifactId="commons-logging" >>>>> version="1.0.4"/> >>>>> <dependency groupId="displaytag" artifactId="displaytag" >>>>> version="1.0" scope="runtime"> >>>>> <exclusions> >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="xalan" groupId="xalan"/> >>>>> </exclusions> >>>>> </dependency> >>>>> <dependency groupId="uk.ltd.getahead" artifactId="dwr" >>>>> version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> >>>>> <dependency groupId="org.hibernate" artifactId="hibernate" >>>>> version="3.0.5"> >>>>> <exclusions> >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="jta" groupId="javax.transaction"/> >>>>> </exclusions> >>>>> </dependency> >>>>> <dependency groupId="geronimo-spec" artifactId="geronimo-spec-jta" >>>>> version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> >>>>> <dependency groupId="jmock" artifactId="jmock" version="1.0.1" >>>>> scope="test"/> >>>>> <dependency groupId="junit" artifactId="junit" version="3.8.1" >>>>> scope="test"/> >>>>> <dependency groupId="jwebunit" artifactId="jwebunit" version="1.2" >>>>> scope="test"/> >>>>> <dependency groupId="httpunit" artifactId="httpunit" version="1.6" >>>>> scope="test"> >>>>> <exclusions> >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="js" groupId="rhino"/> >>>>> </exclusions> >>>>> </dependency> >>>>> <dependency groupId="log4j" artifactId="log4j" version="1.2.11"/> >>>>> <dependency groupId="postgresql" artifactId="postgresql" >>>>> version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> >>>>> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="servlet-api" >>>>> version="2.4" scope="provided"/> >>>>> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="jstl" >>>>> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> >>>>> <dependency groupId="taglibs" artifactId="standard" >>>>> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> >>>>> <dependency groupId="opensymphony" artifactId="sitemesh" >>>>> version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> >>>>> <dependency groupId="springmodules" >>>>> artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" scope="runtime"/> >>>>> <dependency groupId="springframework" artifactId="spring" >>>>> version="1.2.6"/> >>>>> <dependency groupId="springframework" artifactId="spring-mock" >>>>> version="1.2.6" scope="test"> >>>>> <exclusions> >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="spring-jdbc" >>>>> groupId="springframework"/> >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="spring-web" groupId="springframework"/> >>>>> </exclusions> >>>>> </dependency> >>>>> </dependencies> >>>>> >>>>> Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide >>>>> some >>>>> motivation. ;-) >>>>> >>>>> <dependencies> >>>>> <dependency org="apache" name="commons-lang" rev="2.0" /> >>>>> <dependency org="apache" name="commons-cli" rev="1.0" /> >>>>> </dependencies> >>>>> >>>>> Matt >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... >>>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
by Brett Porter
::
Rate this Message:
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 <cservenak@...> 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 <jdcasey1779@...> 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: > >>>>> > >>>>> <dependency> > >>>>> <groupId>springframework</groupId> > >>>>> <artifactId>spring</artifactId> > >>>>> <version>1.2.6</version> > >>>>> </dependency> > >>>>> > >>>>> After: > >>>>> > >>>>> <dep:artifact name="org/springframework/spring" version="1.2.6"/> > >>>>> > >>>>> Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? > >>>>> > >>>>> <dependency groupId="org.springframework" 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 (<ref> and > >>>>> <value>) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. > >>>>> > >>>>> Here's an example of my simplified version: > >>>>> > >>>>> <dependencies> > >>>>> <dependency groupId="cargo" artifactId="cargo" version="0.6" > >>>>> scope="test"/> > >>>>> <dependency groupId="commons-lang" artifactId="commons-lang" > >>>>> version="2.0"/> > >>>>> <dependency groupId="commons-logging" artifactId="commons-logging" > >>>>> version="1.0.4"/> > >>>>> <dependency groupId="displaytag" artifactId="displaytag" > >>>>> version="1.0" scope="runtime"> > >>>>> <exclusions> > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="xalan" groupId="xalan"/> > >>>>> </exclusions> > >>>>> </dependency> > >>>>> <dependency groupId="uk.ltd.getahead" artifactId="dwr" > >>>>> version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> > >>>>> <dependency groupId="org.hibernate" artifactId="hibernate" > >>>>> version="3.0.5"> > >>>>> <exclusions> > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="jta" groupId="javax.transaction"/> > >>>>> </exclusions> > >>>>> </dependency> > >>>>> <dependency groupId="geronimo-spec" artifactId="geronimo-spec-jta" > >>>>> version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> > >>>>> <dependency groupId="jmock" artifactId="jmock" version="1.0.1" > >>>>> scope="test"/> > >>>>> <dependency groupId="junit" artifactId="junit" version="3.8.1" > >>>>> scope="test"/> > >>>>> <dependency groupId="jwebunit" artifactId="jwebunit" version="1.2" > >>>>> scope="test"/> > >>>>> <dependency groupId="httpunit" artifactId="httpunit" version="1.6" > >>>>> scope="test"> > >>>>> <exclusions> > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="js" groupId="rhino"/> > >>>>> </exclusions> > >>>>> </dependency> > >>>>> <dependency groupId="log4j" artifactId="log4j" version="1.2.11"/> > >>>>> <dependency groupId="postgresql" artifactId="postgresql" > >>>>> version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> > >>>>> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="servlet-api" > >>>>> version="2.4" scope="provided"/> > >>>>> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="jstl" > >>>>> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > >>>>> <dependency groupId="taglibs" artifactId="standard" > >>>>> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > >>>>> <dependency groupId="opensymphony" artifactId="sitemesh" > >>>>> version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> > >>>>> <dependency groupId="springmodules" > >>>>> artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" scope="runtime"/> > >>>>> <dependency groupId="springframework" artifactId="spring" > >>>>> version="1.2.6"/> > >>>>> <dependency groupId="springframework" artifactId="spring-mock" > >>>>> version="1.2.6" scope="test"> > >>>>> <exclusions> > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="spring-jdbc" > >>>>> groupId="springframework"/> > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="spring-web" groupId="springframework"/> > >>>>> </exclusions> > >>>>> </dependency> > >>>>> </dependencies> > >>>>> > >>>>> Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide > >>>>> some > >>>>> motivation. ;-) > >>>>> > >>>>> <dependencies> > >>>>> <dependency org="apache" name="commons-lang" rev="2.0" /> > >>>>> <dependency org="apache" name="commons-cli" rev="1.0" /> > >>>>> </dependencies> > >>>>> > >>>>> Matt > >>>>> > >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > >>>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
by Srgjan Srepfler-2
::
Rate this Message:
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 > > 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: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
by Dan Tran
::
Rate this Message:
+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 <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 > > On 12/15/05, Cservenak Tamas <cservenak@...> 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 <jdcasey1779@...> 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: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> <dependency> > > >>>>> <groupId>springframework</groupId> > > >>>>> <artifactId>spring</artifactId> > > >>>>> <version>1.2.6</version> > > >>>>> </dependency> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> After: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> <dep:artifact name="org/springframework/spring" version="1.2.6"/> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="org.springframework" 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 (<ref> > and > > >>>>> <value>) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Here's an example of my simplified version: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> <dependencies> > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="cargo" artifactId="cargo" version="0.6" > > >>>>> scope="test"/> > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="commons-lang" artifactId="commons-lang" > > >>>>> version="2.0"/> > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="commons-logging" > artifactId="commons-logging" > > >>>>> version="1.0.4"/> > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="displaytag" artifactId="displaytag" > > >>>>> version="1.0" scope="runtime"> > > >>>>> <exclusions> > > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="xalan" groupId="xalan"/> > > >>>>> </exclusions> > > >>>>> </dependency> > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="uk.ltd.getahead" artifactId="dwr" > > >>>>> version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="org.hibernate" artifactId="hibernate" > > >>>>> version="3.0.5"> > > >>>>> <exclusions> > > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="jta" groupId="javax.transaction"/> > > >>>>> </exclusions> > > >>>>> </dependency> > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="geronimo-spec" > artifactId="geronimo-spec-jta" > > >>>>> version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="jmock" artifactId="jmock" version="1.0.1" > > >>>>> scope="test"/> > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="junit" artifactId="junit" version="3.8.1" > > >>>>> scope="test"/> > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="jwebunit" artifactId="jwebunit" version=" > 1.2" > > >>>>> scope="test"/> > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="httpunit" artifactId="httpunit" version=" > 1.6" > > >>>>> scope="test"> > > >>>>> <exclusions> > > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="js" groupId="rhino"/> > > >>>>> </exclusions> > > >>>>> </dependency> > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="log4j" artifactId="log4j" version="1.2.11 > "/> > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="postgresql" artifactId="postgresql" > > >>>>> version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="servlet-api" > > >>>>> version="2.4" scope="provided"/> > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="jstl" > > >>>>> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="taglibs" artifactId="standard" > > >>>>> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="opensymphony" artifactId="sitemesh" > > >>>>> version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="springmodules" > > >>>>> artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" > scope="runtime"/> > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="springframework" artifactId="spring" > > >>>>> version="1.2.6"/> > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="springframework" artifactId="spring-mock" > > >>>>> version="1.2.6" scope="test"> > > >>>>> <exclusions> > > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="spring-jdbc" > > >>>>> groupId="springframework"/> > > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="spring-web" > groupId="springframework"/> > > >>>>> </exclusions> > > >>>>> </dependency> > > >>>>> </dependencies> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide > > >>>>> some > > >>>>> motivation. ;-) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> <dependencies> > > >>>>> <dependency org="apache" name="commons-lang" rev="2.0" /> > > >>>>> <dependency org="apache" name="commons-cli" rev="1.0" /> > > >>>>> </dependencies> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Matt > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > >>>> > > >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > |
|
|
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
by Matt Raible-3
::
Rate this Message:
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 <dantran@...> 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 <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 > > > > On 12/15/05, Cservenak Tamas <cservenak@...> 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 <jdcasey1779@...> 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: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> <dependency> > > > >>>>> <groupId>springframework</groupId> > > > >>>>> <artifactId>spring</artifactId> > > > >>>>> <version>1.2.6</version> > > > >>>>> </dependency> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> After: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> <dep:artifact name="org/springframework/spring" version="1.2.6"/> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="org.springframework" 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 (<ref> > > and > > > >>>>> <value>) - it made writing Spring context files *much* easier. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Here's an example of my simplified version: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> <dependencies> > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="cargo" artifactId="cargo" version="0.6" > > > >>>>> scope="test"/> > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="commons-lang" artifactId="commons-lang" > > > >>>>> version="2.0"/> > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="commons-logging" > > artifactId="commons-logging" > > > >>>>> version="1.0.4"/> > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="displaytag" artifactId="displaytag" > > > >>>>> version="1.0" scope="runtime"> > > > >>>>> <exclusions> > > > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="xalan" groupId="xalan"/> > > > >>>>> </exclusions> > > > >>>>> </dependency> > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="uk.ltd.getahead" artifactId="dwr" > > > >>>>> version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="org.hibernate" artifactId="hibernate" > > > >>>>> version="3.0.5"> > > > >>>>> <exclusions> > > > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="jta" groupId="javax.transaction"/> > > > >>>>> </exclusions> > > > >>>>> </dependency> > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="geronimo-spec" > > artifactId="geronimo-spec-jta" > > > >>>>> version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="jmock" artifactId="jmock" version="1.0.1" > > > >>>>> scope="test"/> > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="junit" artifactId="junit" version="3.8.1" > > > >>>>> scope="test"/> > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="jwebunit" artifactId="jwebunit" version=" > > 1.2" > > > >>>>> scope="test"/> > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="httpunit" artifactId="httpunit" version=" > > 1.6" > > > >>>>> scope="test"> > > > >>>>> <exclusions> > > > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="js" groupId="rhino"/> > > > >>>>> </exclusions> > > > >>>>> </dependency> > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="log4j" artifactId="log4j" version="1.2.11 > > "/> > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="postgresql" artifactId="postgresql" > > > >>>>> version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="servlet-api" > > > >>>>> version="2.4" scope="provided"/> > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="jstl" > > > >>>>> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="taglibs" artifactId="standard" > > > >>>>> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="opensymphony" artifactId="sitemesh" > > > >>>>> version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="springmodules" > > > >>>>> artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" > > scope="runtime"/> > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="springframework" artifactId="spring" > > > >>>>> version="1.2.6"/> > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="springframework" artifactId="spring-mock" > > > >>>>> version="1.2.6" scope="test"> > > > >>>>> <exclusions> > > > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="spring-jdbc" > > > >>>>> groupId="springframework"/> > > > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="spring-web" > > groupId="springframework"/> > > > >>>>> </exclusions> > > > >>>>> </dependency> > > > >>>>> </dependencies> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll provide > > > >>>>> some > > > >>>>> motivation. ;-) > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> <dependencies> > > > >>>>> <dependency org="apache" name="commons-lang" rev="2.0" /> > > > >>>>> <dependency org="apache" name="commons-cli" rev="1.0" /> > > > >>>>> </dependencies> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Matt > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
by arikkfir
::
Rate this Message:
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: <dependencies src="dependencies.xml"/> 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 <frank.russo@...> 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:mraible@...] > > 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 <dantran@...> 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 <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 > > > > > > > > On 12/15/05, Cservenak Tamas <cservenak@...> 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 <jdcasey1779@...> 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: > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency> > > > > > >>>>> <groupId>springframework</groupId> > > > > > >>>>> <artifactId>spring</artifactId> > > > > > >>>>> <version>1.2.6</version> > > > > > >>>>> </dependency> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> After: > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> <dep:artifact name="org/springframework/spring" > > > > > >>>>> version="1.2.6"/> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="org.springframework" > > > > > >>>>> 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 > > > > > >>>>> (<ref> > > > > and > > > > > >>>>> <value>) - it made writing Spring context files *much* > > > > > >>>>> easier. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Here's an example of my simplified version: > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> <dependencies> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="cargo" artifactId="cargo" > > > > > >>>>> version="0.6" scope="test"/> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="commons-lang" > > > > > >>>>> artifactId="commons-lang" version="2.0"/> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="commons-logging" > > > > artifactId="commons-logging" > > > > > >>>>> version="1.0.4"/> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="displaytag" > > artifactId="displaytag" > > > > > >>>>> version="1.0" scope="runtime"> > > > > > >>>>> <exclusions> > > > > > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="xalan" groupId="xalan"/> > > > > > >>>>> </exclusions> > > > > > >>>>> </dependency> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="uk.ltd.getahead" artifactId="dwr" > > > > > >>>>> version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="org.hibernate" > > > > > >>>>> artifactId="hibernate" version="3.0.5"> > > > > > >>>>> <exclusions> > > > > > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="jta" > > groupId="javax.transaction"/> > > > > > >>>>> </exclusions> > > > > > >>>>> </dependency> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="geronimo-spec" > > > > artifactId="geronimo-spec-jta" > > > > > >>>>> version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="jmock" artifactId="jmock" > > > > > >>>>> version="1.0.1" scope="test"/> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="junit" artifactId="junit" > > > > > >>>>> version="3.8.1" scope="test"/> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="jwebunit" artifactId="jwebunit" > > > > > >>>>> version=" > > > > 1.2" > > > > > >>>>> scope="test"/> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="httpunit" artifactId="httpunit" > > > > > >>>>> version=" > > > > 1.6" > > > > > >>>>> scope="test"> > > > > > >>>>> <exclusions> > > > > > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="js" groupId="rhino"/> > > > > > >>>>> </exclusions> > > > > > >>>>> </dependency> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="log4j" artifactId="log4j" > > > > > >>>>> version="1.2.11 > > > > "/> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="postgresql" > > artifactId="postgresql" > > > > > >>>>> version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" > > > > > >>>>> artifactId="servlet-api" version="2.4" scope="provided"/> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="jstl" > > > > > >>>>> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="taglibs" artifactId="standard" > > > > > >>>>> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="opensymphony" > > artifactId="sitemesh" > > > > > >>>>> version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="springmodules" > > > > > >>>>> artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" > > > > scope="runtime"/> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="springframework" > > artifactId="spring" > > > > > >>>>> version="1.2.6"/> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="springframework" > > > > > >>>>> artifactId="spring-mock" version="1.2.6" scope="test"> > > > > > >>>>> <exclusions> > > > > > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="spring-jdbc" > > > > > >>>>> groupId="springframework"/> > > > > > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="spring-web" > > > > groupId="springframework"/> > > > > > >>>>> </exclusions> > > > > > >>>>> </dependency> > > > > > >>>>> </dependencies> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll > > > > > >>>>> provide some motivation. ;-) > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> <dependencies> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency org="apache" > > name="commons-lang" rev="2.0" /> > > > > > >>>>> <dependency org="apache" > > name="commons-cli" rev="1.0" /> > > > > > >>>>> </dependencies> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Matt > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > - > > > > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > > > > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > > users-help@... > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ---- > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > - > > > > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > > > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > > users-help@... > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > - > > > > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > > > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > --- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > - > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > -- Regards, _____________________________________ Arik Kfir arikkfir@... |
|
|
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
by ir. ing. Jan Dockx
::
Rate this Message:
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: > > <dependencies src="dependencies.xml"/> > > 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 <frank.russo@...> 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:mraible@...] >>> 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 <dantran@...> 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 <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 >>>>> >>>>> On 12/15/05, Cservenak Tamas <cservenak@...> 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 <jdcasey1779@...> 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: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency> >>>>>>>>>>> <groupId>springframework</groupId> >>>>>>>>>>> <artifactId>spring</artifactId> >>>>>>>>>>> <version>1.2.6</version> >>>>>>>>>>> </dependency> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> After: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <dep:artifact name="org/springframework/spring" >>>>>>>>>>> version="1.2.6"/> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency groupId="org.springframework" >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> (<ref> >>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> <value>) - it made writing Spring context files *much* >>>>>>>>>>> easier. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Here's an example of my simplified version: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependencies> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency groupId="cargo" artifactId="cargo" >>>>>>>>>>> version="0.6" scope="test"/> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency groupId="commons-lang" >>>>>>>>>>> artifactId="commons-lang" version="2.0"/> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency groupId="commons-logging" >>>>> artifactId="commons-logging" >>>>>>>>>>> version="1.0.4"/> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency groupId="displaytag" >>> artifactId="displaytag" >>>>>>>>>>> version="1.0" scope="runtime"> >>>>>>>>>>> <exclusions> >>>>>>>>>>> <exclusion artifactId="xalan" groupId="xalan"/> >>>>>>>>>>> </exclusions> >>>>>>>>>>> </dependency> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency groupId="uk.ltd.getahead" artifactId="dwr" >>>>>>>>>>> version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency groupId="org.hibernate" >>>>>>>>>>> artifactId="hibernate" version="3.0.5"> >>>>>>>>>>> <exclusions> >>>>>>>>>>> <exclusion artifactId="jta" >>> groupId="javax.transaction"/> >>>>>>>>>>> </exclusions> >>>>>>>>>>> </dependency> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency groupId="geronimo-spec" >>>>> artifactId="geronimo-spec-jta" >>>>>>>>>>> version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency groupId="jmock" artifactId="jmock" >>>>>>>>>>> version="1.0.1" scope="test"/> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency groupId="junit" artifactId="junit" >>>>>>>>>>> version="3.8.1" scope="test"/> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency groupId="jwebunit" artifactId="jwebunit" >>>>>>>>>>> version=" >>>>> 1.2" >>>>>>>>>>> scope="test"/> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency groupId="httpunit" artifactId="httpunit" >>>>>>>>>>> version=" >>>>> 1.6" >>>>>>>>>>> scope="test"> >>>>>>>>>>> <exclusions> >>>>>>>>>>> <exclusion artifactId="js" groupId="rhino"/> >>>>>>>>>>> </exclusions> >>>>>>>>>>> </dependency> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency groupId="log4j" artifactId="log4j" >>>>>>>>>>> version="1.2.11 >>>>> "/> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency groupId="postgresql" >>> artifactId="postgresql" >>>>>>>>>>> version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" >>>>>>>>>>> artifactId="servlet-api" version="2.4" scope="provided"/> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="jstl" >>>>>>>>>>> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency groupId="taglibs" artifactId="standard" >>>>>>>>>>> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency groupId="opensymphony" >>> artifactId="sitemesh" >>>>>>>>>>> version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency groupId="springmodules" >>>>>>>>>>> artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" >>>>> scope="runtime"/> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency groupId="springframework" >>> artifactId="spring" >>>>>>>>>>> version="1.2.6"/> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency groupId="springframework" >>>>>>>>>>> artifactId="spring-mock" version="1.2.6" scope="test"> >>>>>>>>>>> <exclusions> >>>>>>>>>>> <exclusion artifactId="spring-jdbc" >>>>>>>>>>> groupId="springframework"/> >>>>>>>>>>> <exclusion artifactId="spring-web" >>>>> groupId="springframework"/> >>>>>>>>>>> </exclusions> >>>>>>>>>>> </dependency> >>>>>>>>>>> </dependencies> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll >>>>>>>>>>> provide some motivation. ;-) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependencies> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency org="apache" >>> name="commons-lang" rev="2.0" /> >>>>>>>>>>> <dependency org="apache" >>> name="commons-cli" rev="1.0" /> >>>>>>>>>>> </dependencies> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Matt >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... >>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: >>> users-help@... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> ---- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... >>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: >>> users-help@... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> - >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> - >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... >> >> > > > -- > Regards, > _____________________________________ > Arik Kfir arikkfir@... > Jan Dockx PeopleWare NV - Head Office Cdt.Weynsstraat 85 B-2660 Hoboken Tel: +32 3 448.33.38 Fax: +32 3 448.32.66 PeopleWare NV - Branch Office Geel Kleinhoefstraat 5 B-2440 Geel Tel: +32 14 57.00.90 Fax: +32 14 58.13.25 http://www.peopleware.be/ http://www.mobileware.be/ |
|
|
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
by Carlos Sanchez-4
::
Rate this Message:
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 <arikkfir@...> 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: > > <dependencies src="dependencies.xml"/> > > 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 <frank.russo@...> 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:mraible@...] > > > 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 <dantran@...> 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 <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 > > > > > > > > > > On 12/15/05, Cservenak Tamas <cservenak@...> 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 <jdcasey1779@...> 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: > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency> > > > > > > >>>>> <groupId>springframework</groupId> > > > > > > >>>>> <artifactId>spring</artifactId> > > > > > > >>>>> <version>1.2.6</version> > > > > > > >>>>> </dependency> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> After: > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> <dep:artifact name="org/springframework/spring" > > > > > > >>>>> version="1.2.6"/> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Or just allow attributes to make things a bit cleaner? > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="org.springframework" > > > > > > >>>>> 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 > > > > > > >>>>> (<ref> > > > > > and > > > > > > >>>>> <value>) - it made writing Spring context files *much* > > > > > > >>>>> easier. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Here's an example of my simplified version: > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependencies> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="cargo" artifactId="cargo" > > > > > > >>>>> version="0.6" scope="test"/> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="commons-lang" > > > > > > >>>>> artifactId="commons-lang" version="2.0"/> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="commons-logging" > > > > > artifactId="commons-logging" > > > > > > >>>>> version="1.0.4"/> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="displaytag" > > > artifactId="displaytag" > > > > > > >>>>> version="1.0" scope="runtime"> > > > > > > >>>>> <exclusions> > > > > > > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="xalan" groupId="xalan"/> > > > > > > >>>>> </exclusions> > > > > > > >>>>> </dependency> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="uk.ltd.getahead" artifactId="dwr" > > > > > > >>>>> version="1.0" scope="runtime"/> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="org.hibernate" > > > > > > >>>>> artifactId="hibernate" version="3.0.5"> > > > > > > >>>>> <exclusions> > > > > > > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="jta" > > > groupId="javax.transaction"/> > > > > > > >>>>> </exclusions> > > > > > > >>>>> </dependency> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="geronimo-spec" > > > > > artifactId="geronimo-spec-jta" > > > > > > >>>>> version="1.0.1B-rc4"/> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="jmock" artifactId="jmock" > > > > > > >>>>> version="1.0.1" scope="test"/> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="junit" artifactId="junit" > > > > > > >>>>> version="3.8.1" scope="test"/> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="jwebunit" artifactId="jwebunit" > > > > > > >>>>> version=" > > > > > 1.2" > > > > > > >>>>> scope="test"/> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="httpunit" artifactId="httpunit" > > > > > > >>>>> version=" > > > > > 1.6" > > > > > > >>>>> scope="test"> > > > > > > >>>>> <exclusions> > > > > > > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="js" groupId="rhino"/> > > > > > > >>>>> </exclusions> > > > > > > >>>>> </dependency> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="log4j" artifactId="log4j" > > > > > > >>>>> version="1.2.11 > > > > > "/> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="postgresql" > > > artifactId="postgresql" > > > > > > >>>>> version="8.1-404.jdbc3"/> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" > > > > > > >>>>> artifactId="servlet-api" version="2.4" scope="provided"/> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="javax.servlet" artifactId="jstl" > > > > > > >>>>> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="taglibs" artifactId="standard" > > > > > > >>>>> version="1.1.2" scope="runtime"/> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="opensymphony" > > > artifactId="sitemesh" > > > > > > >>>>> version="2.2.1" scope="runtime"/> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="springmodules" > > > > > > >>>>> artifactId="springmodules-validator" version="0.1" > > > > > scope="runtime"/> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="springframework" > > > artifactId="spring" > > > > > > >>>>> version="1.2.6"/> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency groupId="springframework" > > > > > > >>>>> artifactId="spring-mock" version="1.2.6" scope="test"> > > > > > > >>>>> <exclusions> > > > > > > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="spring-jdbc" > > > > > > >>>>> groupId="springframework"/> > > > > > > >>>>> <exclusion artifactId="spring-web" > > > > > groupId="springframework"/> > > > > > > >>>>> </exclusions> > > > > > > >>>>> </dependency> > > > > > > >>>>> </dependencies> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Of course, Ivy's syntax is even simpler, so maybe that'll > > > > > > >>>>> provide some motivation. ;-) > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependencies> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency org="apache" > > > name="commons-lang" rev="2.0" /> > > > > > > >>>>> <dependency org="apache" > > > name="commons-cli" rev="1.0" /> > > > > > > >>>>> </dependencies> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Matt > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > - > > > > > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > > > > > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > > > users-help@... > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > ---- > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > - > > > > > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > > > > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > > > users-help@... > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > - > > > > > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > > > > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > --- > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > - > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... > > > > > > > -- > Regards, > _____________________________________ > Arik Kfir arikkfir@... > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
by mdaniel
::
Rate this Message:
> 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: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
smime.p7s (3K) | < Prev | 1 - 2 | Next > |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
