I mentioned an idea in my review that seems to have been overlooked. I
think a regular .pom in the repository shouldn't be able to be used as a
"mixin". We should keep inheritance and mixins separate. The way I would
do it is with a new packaging type of mixin that would take another xml
file like mixin.xml and deploy that to the repository, similar to a
classified artifact. You have the mixin's pom and then the mixin itself.
Only the mixin file can be used for inclusion in a <mixin> element. This
way the mixin can be abstract and only contain the appropriate
fragments, yet have a separate pom with all the info needed to build and
deploy said mixin to a remote repository. Mixins are useless if they
can't be put into a repo.

anyone wanna play a drinking game on the thread for each mixin mention?
;-) 

-----Original Message-----
From: Shane Isbell [mailto:shane.isb...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:57 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: POM construction specification

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Ralph Goers
<ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>wrote:

>
> 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.

 If we are talking about linearized inheritance, then the analogy is
correct.

Maven doesn't currently support that and I think that is a very good
thing.

The super pom is a type of multiple (linearized) inheritance.

Shane

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Reply via email to