maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Manfred Moser" <manf...@mosabuam.com>
Subject Re: Model Version 5.0.0
Date Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:19:16 GMT

> By separating "consumption" and "production" metadata formats, we'll be
> able to evolve production format more aggressively. For example, it
> would be nice to have Tycho-specific configuration markup inside <build>
> section. This is not currently possible because all poms must be
> compatible with the same model.

I like the idea of consumptions specifics. It would be great if we could
agree/define some sort of standard on how to declare suitability for
artifacts for certain deployment scenarios ..
e.g. it is jar suitable for Java 6, 7, 8, 9 or what, what about running on
Android, or on some embedded Java version profile.

I dont believe that the previous approaches of using classifiers is just
not powerful enough. And I also agree that we should potentially just
stick to the existing format.

E.g. nothing stops us from declaring a standard for e.g. for a bunch of
properties like

<properties>
 <runtime.android>true</runtime.android>
 <runtime.java6>true</runtime.java6>
</properties>

or
<properties>
 <runtime.android>false</runtime.android>
 <runtime.java6>false</runtime.java6>
 <runtime.java7>true</runtime.java7>
</properties>

Of course we should put more thought into this but declaring a standard
sooner rather than later could help a lot with the oncoming wave of
libraries that will not work for Java 6 anymore and others going forward
with e.g. Java 8 only and so on.

Manfred


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


Mime
View raw message