maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Schulte ...@schulte.it>
Subject Re: POM Model version 4.1.0 in 3.4.0-SNAPSHOTs
Date Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:39:59 GMT
Am 08/31/16 um 07:52 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> I've been thinking about what to call the "consumer Pom"...
> 
> I think this is actually not a project object model, but the project
> dependency trees
> 
> It should list each side artifact and their dependency trees...
> 
> So for example:
> 
> * the java doc artifacts should depend on the corresponding dependency java
> doc artifacts (in an ideal world) because we expect {@link} references
> 
> * the source artifacts do not depend on anything else (normally) but for an
> ├╝ber jar (which yes is a bad pattern) you would actually be correct to
> depend on the bundled artifacts source jars... So the concept still makes
> sense
> 
> * the test jar artifact would have the full test dependency tree exposed as
> this would allow for test reuse

+1

Sounds like dependency trees by scope. The compile scope tree, the
runtime scope tree, the test scope tree, the documentation scope tree,
the source code scope tree, the invented by a 3rd party scope tree, etc.

> 
> Now I guess the question is if .pdt or .adt (artifact dependency trees) are
> too entrenched in some other domain that we'd want to avoid using one
> of those extensions
> 
> Next steps:
> 
> * start fleshing out a schema for the .pdt files
> * start fleshing out a spec for the repository layout (should be "parsable"
> by modelVersion 4.0.0 aware clients, but need to decide how to expose new
> features)

+1

Regards,
-- 
Christian


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


Mime
View raw message