gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <>
Subject Re: Maven 2 (was Re: Maven 1.1)
Date Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:03:18 GMT
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:10:24PM +1100, Brett Porter wrote:
> > Why do you keep referring to a something.xml? Is it going to be a lot
> > easier to have the maven jar resolver read a something.xml rather than do
> > something else (like, I dunno, a database, or an XML/RPC interface, or
> > ...)? Just checking -- I think there's more assumptions in my head that
> > might need to get out.
> No, we can read from any number of sources, nothing has to be XML.
> Like what you are saying - we just need to end up with a Maven POM in
> Java (where you need to end up with your Gump object model).
> All I'm saying is that both Maven and Gump shouldn't have to implement
> the same mechanism to read all the formats gump digests (and as Maven
> pulls dependencies, it will need to get that information). If Gump
> intends to do this, all it needs to do is output a file from the gump
> object model and Maven can read just one format (and if it outputs a
> POM, even better :)
> Of course, Maven *could* do all this, but either that's doubling up,
> or putting Maven at the centre of Gump, neither of which seem
> desirable :)

Maven is in the center of the developers for a project (they type "mvn"
and not "gump") so what these people want to author is a POM. Gump should
read that POM and understand it.

Question: can gump get away with writing things like settings.xml and
command line arguments and not touch any POM at all (eg maven just reads
the normal pom.xml that's already there) yet change enough of maven's
behaviour so that all the classworlds match up properly with the "gump

Maybe we should just try it and see how far we get.

- Leo

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message