maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Scholte" <rfscho...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Build vs Consumer POM study
Date Tue, 13 Mar 2018 17:23:05 GMT
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:13:59 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.boutemy@free.fr>  
wrote:

> Hi Charles,
>
> Thanks for the feedback
>
> Le lundi 12 mars 2018, 01:49:26 CET Charles Honton a écrit :
>> Hervé,
>>
>> Great work!
> Thank you: it took a lot of time and discussion :)
>
>> Some possible additions for the wiki page:
>>
>> Naming Conventions
>> consumer pom must continue to be named pom.xml
>> build pom shall be called build.xml
>> alternate build inputs could be build.json or build.yaml
> ok, makes sense, I reworked it and added to the proposal

Well, I think renaming would cause IDE issues (it's claimed for Ant  
projects), and this file still represents the Project Object Model, hence  
pom still makes sense.
I expect more issues than benefits, and everywhere is documented: a Maven  
project requires a pom.xml

>
>>
>> EcoSystem Impacts
>> projects distributing source code through maven central should include  
>> the
>> build pom. This requires updating maven source plugin.
> why? do people building with Ant publish their build.xml?
>
>>  flattened consumer
>> pom will impact version resolution;
> no, the intent is that it does absolutely not change anything at that  
> level:
> that's the whole idea, for compatibility
>
>> what was a deep dependency will be
>> brought to second level how will IDEs be affected?
> ??
>
> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
>>
>> > On Mar 11, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.boutemy@free.fr> 

>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I wrote a Proposal in the Wiki about Build vs Consumer POM [1] and  
>> coded a
>> > simplified model for the Consumer POM [2]
>> > As written in the proposal, this would permit us to create new POM
>> > versions
>> > that change everything but not the Consumer POM part without breaking  
>> any
>> > compatibility with existing Central repository users: build element  
>> is the
>> > main element that could be changed, adding new build
>> > features/configuration
>> > without affecting consumers.
>> >
>> > In addition to reviewing choices proposed for majority of POM  
>> elements,
>> > there are 4 elements that require more discussion:
>> > - contributors
>> > - mailingLists
>> > - repositories
>> > - profiles/activation
>> >
>> > Any thoughts?
>> >
>> > On the code, IMHO, the only missing part is a test of  
>> flatten-maven-plugin
>> > to check that everything works as expected in any situation.
>> > And I suppose a discussion on what we do for the xsd
>> >
>> > Then we should be able to use this strategy for our own artifacts,  
>> before
>> > updating POM model version in any newer Maven version starting with  
>> 3.6
>> > (yay!)
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Hervé
>> >
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >  
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Build+vs+Consumer+POM
>> >
>> > [2] http://maven.apache.org/studies/consumer-pom/maven-consumer.html
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

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


Mime
View raw message