Guess the main question is what do we do of all extensions, we can maybe create a maven-extension-proposal repo and put all the draft and tests there and promote them to top level repo if users adopt it (but it would also mean IDE which will stay the main blocker for adoption IMHO).
In terms of format itself I guess we should refine the XML (attribute etc) first but json or json5 can be interesting things to evaluate. Hocon and yaml have their ecosystem but are far to be interoperable and generally readable so it sounds like something we can't integrate ore than an extension outside the core of the project in terms of maintenance. Just my 2 cts. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://x.com/rmannibucau> | .NET Blog <https://dotnetbirdie.github.io/> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.github.io/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/java-ee-8-high-performance-9781788473064> Le mer. 5 mars 2025 à 21:17, Elliotte Rusty Harold <elh...@ibiblio.org> a écrit : > Please no. YAML is a utter mess full of sharp edges to hurt the > unwary. It's poorly understood, poorly specified, and poorly > documented. It's not clear there are any confomrant parsers or indeed > that the concept of conformance even makes sense for something so ill > specified. If you must have something that's not XML, then JSON is the > far superior choice, but even that would be a mistake, just not as > disastrous a one. I really don't want to see multiple formats out in > the wild. One is the right number. Anything more than that increases > complexity for no particular value. That's complexity for both users > who need to understand two formats and tools that need to support two > formats. > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 4:17 PM Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Hey ! > > > > A while ago, I created a Hocon based POM parser [1], leveraging Maven > > 4 new capabilities to support new syntaxes for POMs. > > However, as much as that syntax seems interesting, I've been pointed > > that it's not really supported. So I never actually released it. > > But I'd still like to get out a new syntax and so I wrote one to > > support the well known YAML syntax. I thus created a small extension > > to support it [2]. > > It's much more concise wrt GAV ids and especially dependencies [3]. > > > > So I'd like to get it into the Maven project and release it. > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/maven-hocon-extension > > [2] https://github.com/gnodet/maven-yaml-extension > > [3] > https://github.com/gnodet/maven-yaml-extension/blob/master/src/test/resources/dependency-gav.yaml#L21-L30 > > > > -- > > ------------------------ > > Guillaume Nodet > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > -- > Elliotte Rusty Harold > elh...@ibiblio.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
