On Dec 17, 2008, at 11:31 PM, Shane Isbell wrote:
And I've said multiple times that that isn't an adequate definition.
Jason's post provided a better clue but still doesn't define it.
Your
definition is about like me telling you that I am heading a JCP
committee to
define a new Java entity called mixin and in it you will be able to
use all
the existing java grammar but I tell you nothing more than that.
Would you
have a clue how that is useful?
No it wouldn't be useful. But if you said a mixin is like an
abstract class
and all it's elements can be inherited exactly like an abstract
class, then
I would have a pretty good clue.
Yes and no. Yes, that would be understandable but it would also be
inaccurate. The problem here is that you are introducing multiple
inheritance into the mix so that analogy doesn't fit. Maven doesn't
currently support that and I think that is a very good thing. Treating
a mixin on an equal footing with the parent pom is just wrong IMO.
Treating it like an aspect or as a way of "importing" things into a
pom is OK as long as the rules are well defined.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
