maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: Progress on support for large projects
Date Fri, 15 May 2009 21:18:53 GMT

On May 15, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Joerg Hohwiller wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
>> I think you are referring to one of the other patches that was
>> submitted, not what I committed to the MNG-624 branch.
>
> MNG-624 or maven-2.1.x-MNG-624 ?
I think it was maven-2.1.x-MNG-624. Its been a long time since I  
worked on this.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> A big problem could be the encoding issue if you store XML in a  
>>> string
>>> and then want to save it with some Writer, you need to know the  
>>> encoding
>>> from the XML-header or you run into trouble.
>>
>> My fix didn't store the XML in a string, it modified the DOM.
>
> OK. But the existing parsing is done by XPP right?
I believe so.
>
>
> Do we want parsing the POMs twice with different parsers?

>
>
> Is there some general strategy decision about POM-transformation
> design by the core developers of maven?
Maven 2.x is a mess with this. It is one of the things I believe they  
worked really hard to change in Maven 3. Again, I haven't reviewed the  
new code so I don't know how successful they were.
>
>
> Do Brett and Jason care about this?
Everybody cares about this. The way Maven 2.x was implemented is very  
brittle. Almost every change made to the project builder ends up  
having nasty side effects.
>
>
> Sorry for the stupid question, but your patch/branch seems to
> be the second solution so this means to me that the first
> has failed already. I now see that is was Eric Brown who
> wasted his time already and he seemed somewhat disappointed.
> As the problem of doing a POM-transformation
> which is NOT only relevant for MNG-624 is quite general.
> So I just want to avoid that the second approach will fail again.
> I would not mind to invest some of my very little time as well
> in this but only if there is a clear chance that we are going
> towards a solution that fits well into the architecture of maven
> and will therefore be accepted to be integrated in 2.1.x.

I seemed to be the only committer interested in fixing these issues. I  
did not like Eric's patch because it added logic the the artifact  
handler that it had no business knowing about.  As I recall I  
documented my reasons in one of the Jira issues.

You have to understand that although the problem might seem trivial,  
fixes for problems like this can't break existing builds. That makes  
even the simplest fix challenging.

Ralph


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org


Mime
View raw message