felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: maven-bundle-plugin proposal
Date Fri, 26 Jan 2007 20:52:53 GMT

On Jan 26, 2007, at 12:16 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:

> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2007, at 5:30 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>
>>>>> This would allow people to easily achieve the same behavior as  
>>>>> the old plugin by simply doing:
>>>>>
>>>>>    <embed-dependency>*;scope=compile,*;scope=runtime</embed-

>>>>> dependency>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, this instruction would automatically embed any maven  
>>>>> dependencies that were of scope "compile" or "runtime" and  
>>>>> append them to the bundle class path.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> I like that finer degree of control that this gives but think  
>>>> that we should stick to using XML elements.  I think that it's  
>>>> bad form to mix-in OSGi manifest like patterns in a Maven POM,  
>>>> especially when those patterns govern the behavior of a Maven  
>>>> plugin.
>>>
>>> Do you have a proposal? I think it would be quite ugly/verbose to  
>>> break such syntax out into XML elements.
>>>
>>> I am not sure I understand why there is a constraint on the form  
>>> of XML used by a plugin. It is almost as if you are saying that  
>>> BND's syntax isn't Maven-like enough.
>>>
>>> This is a plugin for creating OSGi bundles, so it seems to make  
>>> sense for it to be comfortable for OSGi developers. Don't you think?
>>
>>
>> It's not the end of the world if the plugin uses this syntax.   
>> This could arguably be a bike shed issue but let me give what I  
>> think is a relevant analogy.
>>
>> Let's say that we are writing a unix command that submits jobs to  
>> a VAX/VMS system; gee I hope people remember DEC.  One could say  
>> that we should allow the VAX/VMS command flag syntax, e.g. "/OUT"  
>> to be used for this unix command instead of the standard "-o"  
>> because it makes sense for it to be comfortable for VAX/VMSers.   
>> We would allow other unix options like "-v" and "-h", etc., hence  
>> we would be mixing the two nomenclatures.
>>
>> Not very pretty, in my opinion, in spite of my prowess and love  
>> for VAX/VMS.  It also causes problems for projects that may want  
>> to automatically generate scripts that may include this command  
>> because not only do those projects need to know unix commands but  
>> they must remember that there was this one project that was  
>> nostalgic for VAX/VMS command syntax.
>>
>> Part of the power of POMs is not the terseness of its expressions  
>> but that there is a single lingua franca.  XML provides easy  
>> access for tooling.
>
> I agree that this is a reasonable argument, but this is only  
> relevant if we assume that at some point in time someone else might  
> want to parse the BND commands, which seems like an unlikely  
> possibility.

I'm not so sure.  Lots of interesting stuff to configure for these  
bundle puppies.  Tooling can definitely help.  However, I also had  
the argument that it's just plain bad form; granted this definitely  
falls into the grey realm of bike sheds.

> To me, this is akin to maven version numbers. Version numbers are  
> not broken out into their individual elements, instead it is just  
> accepted that there is internal syntax which can be parsed and  
> certain pieces mean certain things, like SNAPSHOT.

I think that you would be hard pressed to find many more examples  
like this and I would be quick to point out that the lexicon applies  
across the board for *all* maven POMs.


Regards,
Alan




Mime
View raw message