Re: Maven xsd

Arnaud HERITIER wrote: We should maintain 2 schemas :-( Or can we generate the maven-pom-extend from maven-pom-strict. I know, it sounds like overkill. But the two schemas are basically identical, except that in strict we put some minOccurs=1 for all elements that are required. I think it

Re: Maven xsd

Arnaud HERITIER wrote: After thinking about it I'm not sure it's a good idea to validate the POM with a schema :-( I don't really agree with you here. It's true that the plugin will not help you if your pom is actually not well formed or not parsable, Maven core will fail before the plugin

RE: Maven xsd

> > > Remark: the current pom:validate goal works to some extent > even for poms that extend others. Having a valid > a/project.xml and a b/project.xml with only > ../a/project.xml in it, validates b. Making > an invalid change to a's pom then makes the validation on b > fail as well. Good

Re: Maven xsd

Remark: the current pom:validate goal works to some extent even for poms that extend others. Having a valid a/project.xml and a b/project.xml with only ../a/project.xml in it, validates b. Making an invalid change to a's pom then makes the validation on b fail as well. However, it doesn't wo

RE: Maven xsd

The only solution is to do what is already done actually... 1) We can't have a schema more restrictive because each element is optional if you use the POM's inheritence. 2) We can't easily merged project.xml files because there are several rules : some elements replace the ones in the parent and

Re: Maven xsd

The real POM has to be checked against a schema, that's sure. If we want to check also the generated model I'm ok with that, but as a new feature (sanitity test). On 10/6/05, Lukas Theussl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am a bit sceptical about that. I don't know in detail how the > PomRewriter

Re: Maven xsd

I am a bit sceptical about that. I don't know in detail how the PomRewriter class works but it constructs a new pom from a maven model. That means it gets transformed on the way, I did a few tests and noticed that attributes get stripped, the order of elements changed, ...? It would be safer

RE: Maven xsd

use it to test the POM. WDYT ? Arnaud > -Message d'origine- > De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la > part de Carlos Sanchez > Envoyé : mercredi 5 octobre 2005 00:31 > À : Maven Developers List > Objet : Re: Maven xsd > > I've opened an

Re: Maven xsd

I've opened an issue about POM not requiring groupId. My question is: the pom validates against schema before checking extension or is a temp pom aggregating the parent pom data the one that is checked against the schema? On 10/4/05, Lukas Theussl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks Tony for you

Re: Maven xsd

Thanks Tony for your remarks! So what you are saying is that we can drop the namespace requirement if we make sure to check the pom version instead? Would something like the following do: Another general question: I noticed that maven-project.xsd defines a minOccurs="0" at

Re: Maven xsd

Since POM instances identify their POM version, there is a case that the namespace does not need to change with every new POM version. However, it sounds to me like there is a problem with the way "pom:validate" is conceived. If you are validate a POM instance for an older version of the P

Re: Maven xsd

Carlos Sanchez wrote: Hi, I've poms without namespace which are working under 1.1b2, why are you saying it's required? Sure they work but they don't validate. The problem that I have currently is that running 'pom:validate' on a pom without namespace declaration seems to hang the msv veri

RE: Maven xsd

I have no idea. Brett, Jason ? Others ? Arnaud > -Message d'origine- > De : Lukas Theussl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Envoyé : mardi 4 octobre 2005 01:56 > À : Maven Developers List > Objet : Re: Maven xsd > > > May I assume silent consent and ask s

Re: Maven xsd

Hi, I've poms without namespace which are working under 1.1b2, why are you saying it's required? Regards On 10/3/05, Lukas Theussl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > May I assume silent consent and ask somebody with core privs to remove > those namespace requirements? > > [Just being pushy, I'd like

Re: Maven xsd

May I assume silent consent and ask somebody with core privs to remove those namespace requirements? [Just being pushy, I'd like to get some feedback] -Lukas Lukas Theussl wrote: I am currently re-writing the validation routines for the pom:validate and xdoc:validate goals and I'd like