maven-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeffrey Bonevich <>
Subject Re: Comments property on License
Date Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:14:07 GMT
Cool.  There seems to be a pattern of the base POM classes extending 
BaseObject, which has name and id properties, but not necessarily 
declaring same in XSD or docs.  Which is better to follow - code, XSD, 
docs (my gut sez go with the code)?  Here are the inconsistencies I find:

*Organization - has name, no id
*Repository - no name or id
*Branch - adding name and id means it == Version, but maybe it should?
*MailingList - has name, no id
*Contributor - has name, no id; adding id means == Developer
*License - has name, no id
*Dependency - has id, no name
*Build - neither
*Report - neither

Does not necessarily make sense that they all should, nor should code 
necessarily be directly reflected in XSD.  But for some (Organization, 
Branch, Contributor, License, Dependency?) it makes sense???

Do you want the comments issue entered in JIRA?

jeff wrote:
> comments is missing from the XSD and should be present.
> --
> dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
> Blog:
> Jeffrey Bonevich <> wrote on 30/11/2003 01:41:44 PM:
>>I am working on the POM editor for mevenide's Eclipse plugin.  Hoping 
>>someone in the know could answer this question:
>>The License class has properties: name, distribution, url, and comments. 
>>  Comments is not discussed in the reference docs, nor is it in the 
>>current version of the XSD for maven's project.xml file.
>>So is comment a deprecated property or just an oversight of XSD and ref 
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message