No, when building you have the consumer pom locally too and anyway if we say this is an issue we just revert everything and stay on 4.0.0 which is very unlikely for all the reason we are discussing maven 4 so not sure we have the choice to be frank.
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 jeu. 24 juil. 2025 à 16:38, Sylwester Lachiewicz <slachiew...@gmail.com> a écrit : > If I understand correctly - consumer pom is for consumers that accept > binary artefacts. So do security reasons, if someone decides to build it > internally from sources - this will not work and still needs to accept > different build pom styles. > We are aiming for build reproducibility anyway. > > Sylwester > > czw., 24 lip 2025, 16:12 użytkownik Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com> napisał: > > > Not sure it changes anything, you can still build from source, get the > > consumer pom and parse it. > > What we should encourage for sure is to NOT do it for build pom within > the > > project since now we can change it anytime for new features (hopefully > not > > too often but we enabled it cause it was an issue). > > Also enables projects to use whatever language/syntax they want. > > So the only pivot format you have is the consumer pom and it doesn't > > require a remote repository so all good for everybody I think. > > > > 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 jeu. 24 juil. 2025 à 15:50, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> a > > écrit : > > > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025, 09:36 Elliotte Rusty Harold <elh...@ibiblio.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > It helps that the consumer pom still uses the old namespace, but > > > > that's still not everything. Tools still need to analyze and > > > > understand the build pom, not just the consumer pom. For instance, > > > > organizations that are as paranoid about security as Google (and with > > > > good reason) build everything from source, and do not trust opaque > > > > binary jars. Again, organizations that large can afford to work > > > > around multiple namespaces, but I would like to make this more > > > > accessible for smaller developers that also want to build tools that > > > > try to comprehend the build structure. > > > > > > > > The more I dig into this the more I worry that this is hiding some > > > > other questionable practices where until now no one has asked the > > > > simple question, "Why are we doing it like this?" Two in particular > > > > are starting to concern me: > > > > > > > > 1. Model versions are inferred from the namespace, enabling conflicts > > > > that wouldn't otherwise exist. A general sense of code hygiene > > > > suggests that there should be exactly one element defining the model > > > > version, and if there are two they shouldn't be allowed to disagree > > > > with each other. Otherwise, devs are in for some nasty debugging > > > > sessions where they think they've set something only to see different > > > > behavior. It's needlessly complex. > > > > > > > > 2. It's not just a 4.0 and 4.1 namespace. Large parts of Maven code > > > > appear to allow any namespace at all. E.g. > > > > http://docbook.org/ns/docbook This one might confuse tools in both > > > > directions: the ones looking for a pom and the ones looking for > > > > whatever the namespace purports to be. I'm not completely sure what > > > > the implications are here — what tools it would break or holes it > > > > might open — but it's a big world, and attackers looking to > compromise > > > > systems are often more devious than me. And again we don't actually > > > > gain anything useful by allowing multiple namespaces so locking this > > > > down feels prudent. > > > > > > > > Bottom line: I'm not hearing any technical reasons why we need or > > > > should have two namespaces for what amount to the same elements. The > > > > primary objection to keeping the namespace is timing. Folks are > tired, > > > > and want to ship. I sympathize with that. However, I fall on the side > > > > of the line that would prefer to see getting this right now, even at > > > > the cost of delaying 4.0, rather than living with a needlessly > complex > > > > format for the remaining decades it's likely to be in the world. > > > > > > > > > > Nice message! Thank you for the explainer. I feel this can be sold as > > > hardening, it's not just a design issue. > > > > > > From this user's POV, I'd rather see 4.0 get this right as I expect to > do > > > migration tweaks in a major release. 5.0 feels like a million years > away. > > > Changing this in a further 4.x feels like an unexpected breaking > change. > > > > > > HTH, > > > Gary > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 6:38 PM Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I think you missed an important feature of Maven 4: the consumer > POM. > > > > > > > > > > In Maven 4, the consumer POM is what is deployed for the POM > > > > accompanying a > > > > > jar. > > > > > That POM has a http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0 + modelVersion > = > > > > 4.0.0 > > > > > so that it can be consumed by Maven 3 and other tools, gradle, > ivy, > > > > etc... > > > > > This POM is rewritten from the build POM which can have a different > > > model > > > > > version, > > > > > namespace, or language (i.e. not XML). > > > > > So if your concern is about what is deployed as POM, then you don't > > > have > > > > to > > > > > worry about it. > > > > > > > > > > Le mer. 23 juil. 2025 à 15:37, Elliotte Rusty Harold < > > > elh...@ibiblio.org> > > > > a > > > > > écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 1:07 PM Tamás Cservenák < > > ta...@cservenak.net > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To me your message sounds you assume model parsing == model > > > building. > > > > > > > Dependency trees and XML parsing? Analyzing what is in project? > > > Just > > > > as > > > > > > > users can use xpath or other standard tech? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is totally unrelated and POMs alone are most often even > > > > incomplete > > > > > > as > > > > > > > they have parents, imports and interpolation and profile > > > activations > > > > and > > > > > > so > > > > > > > on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an important point. The Maven repository system is more > > than > > > > > > Maven. The pom.xml is not just for Maven. Most obviously it is > also > > > > > > used by gradle, Ivy, bazel, and other build tools. POMs are also > > > > > > consumed by static analyzers who want to figure out what > dependency > > > > > > trees look like, most commonly whether there are vulnerable or > > banned > > > > > > dependencies but also for things like dependency convergence and > > > > > > necessary updates. There are others, and there would be many more > > if > > > > > > the pom format were easier to consume and process. > > > > > > > > > > > > At one point a large part of my day job was writing software to > > > > > > analyze and understand the dependency graph of various projects. > We > > > > > > ended up spending probably several hundred thousand dollars worth > > of > > > > > > engineer time because we couldn't use standard XML tools for this > > > task > > > > > > precisely due to the namespace problems. Google could afford to > > work > > > > > > around that, but a lot of organizations can't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the pom.xml, you have no simple way to get the dependency > tree. > > > > > Computing this tree is what the resolver does, and that's > definitely > > > not > > > > a > > > > > trivial task. We've simplified the consumer POM a bit in Maven 4 by > > > > > flattening the POMs, so it's a bit easier to actually compute the > > > > effective > > > > > POM because you don't have to flatten the hierarchy. But trying to > > > > > compute the dependency tree without Maven will very probably lead > to > > > > > a different tree than what Maven expects. > > > > > Other build tools tend to use Maven Resolver to actually compute > the > > > > > dependency tree AFAIK. Which is also why we want Maven to be more > > > > > reusable, and that's what the Maven 4 API will provide with a > single > > > API > > > > > to access all Maven features, either internally or externally. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wish the repository system and pom format were not so tightly > > > > > > coupled to the Maven build tool, but that ship sailed long ago. > > > > > > Ideally the decision about when and whether to revise the pom.xml > > > > > > format would not be made not only by Apache Maven developers but > > > > > > instead include all the stakeholders: Gradle, Sonatype, Google, > > > > > > Oracle, and more. So far none of them have been heard from. We > just > > > > > > have a very small group of active developers of one build tool > > making > > > > > > decisions for everyone. What we can do now is avoid making the > > > problem > > > > > > even worse by introducing additional namespace URIs beyond what > we > > > > > > already have. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, that's the consumer side. We did split the consumer and the > > > build > > > > > POM. So, yes, the Maven community is deciding how the BUILD POM is > > > > > evolving, and I think that's fine. I don't see why other people > > would > > > > have > > > > > to say about which feature we want to add in a particular version. > > > > > That does not affect other consumers from Maven Central at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > ------------------------ > > > > > Guillaume Nodet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
