maven-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Glick <>
Subject WAS Re: problems with Maven 1.1 -beta-1 in defining entities in project.xml - NOW Potential POM policy change
Date Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:01:02 GMT
Brett Porter wrote:
> when this is fixed it will be possible (however, it will be a non-default 
> option)
> - Brett
> On 9/12/05, Jörg Schaible <> wrote:
>>Andy Glick wrote on Saturday, September 10, 2005 4:10 AM:
>>>When I executed "maven pom:validate" on your project.xml file
>>>I found 2
>>>lines that the Modello generated parser rejected.
>>>1) Maven 1.1 no longer supports XML entities as a means of
>>>including XML
>>This is a complete show-stopper for Maven 1.1 for us. We make heavily use 
>>of XML entities for all kind of information in the POMs and we use company 
>>wide system entities and entitiy overload mechanism.

The requirements on a deployed POM have changed greatly between M1 and M2, and I believe they
have have actually changed between M 1.0.2 and M 1.1B1. Because of the various incompatibility
issues that are being mentioned on the list and because I have to believe that the active
community would like to see the transitions between releases be as convenient and smooth as
possible, both for now and going forward, I wanted to propose that we discuss the possibility
of having development time POM binding and deployment time POM binding.

That would mean that there could be 

1) a private form of the POM maintained by the development team in a manner that was compatible
with their development conventions and goals 

2) a public form of the POM that was a well defined member of a per artifact/version "upload
bundle" that would follow strict conventions so that it can be used in an as is fashion and
supports transitive dependency computation and conflict resolution. The M2 POM & repository
models now support much finer grained control and variation than M1 at the artifact/version

3) Some set of default as well as optional interception points to allow the integration of
transformers which could produce a deployment POM from a development POM

I didn't mention implementation details, because I don't want to muddy the water. If we can
agree that this is an issue that we would like to address, I'm sure that we will be able to
identify candidate implementations.

I'm sorry if this is already under active discussion, but if it is, I missed it on the lists.

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

View raw message