On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 05:09, Maczka Michal wrote:
> Just general remark regarding model-marshallres and unmarshallers.
>
> In a (long) future we will need probably to think about preserving and
> respecting
> encodings used in the POMs.
>
>
Definitely, maybe pop that issue into JIRA under the
Just general remark regarding model-marshallres and unmarshallers.
In a (long) future we will need probably to think about preserving and
respecting
encodings used in the POMs.
Michal
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTEC
>
> From: Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2004/01/11 Sun PM 05:13:01 EST
> To: "'Maven Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: maven-model-tools to maven-model-xml
>
> I was about to say the same thing :)
>
> I t
>
> From: Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2004/01/11 Sun PM 05:05:26 EST
> To: Maven Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: maven-model-tools to maven-model-xml
>
> On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 16:50, Brett Porter wrote:
> > Do we real
Brett,
> Do we really need N libraries each containing two classes?
>
> I would think there should be one interface to marshal/unmarshal a model
> from a source, and then N providers. maven-model-tools can provide the main
> ones we want to distribute, but others could be plugged in by third part
Jason,
Thanks for all your help!
>
> From: Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I was going to move maven-model-tools to maven-model-xml to indicate the
> model being in XML form. I'm doing so as Alex wants to try and make a
> tool that pulls the model from LDAP so 'maven-model-tools' isn't exac
bably ok, LDAP and OJB might be in a
separate JAR).
- Brett
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, 12 January 2004 9:05 AM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: RE: maven-model-tools to maven-model-xml
>
>
> On Su
On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 12:00, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> I was going to move maven-model-tools to maven-model-xml to indicate the
> model being in XML form. I'm doing so as Alex wants to try and make a
> tool that pulls the model from LDAP so 'maven-model-tools' isn't exactly
> a helpful or
On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 16:50, Brett Porter wrote:
> Do we really need N libraries each containing two classes?
>
> I would think there should be one interface to marshal/unmarshal a model
> from a source, and then N providers. maven-model-tools can provide the main
> ones we want to distribute, but
On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 16:50, Brett Porter wrote:
> Do we really need N libraries each containing two classes?
If component pulling from a different source certainly should be in
separate builds.
> I would think there should be one interface to marshal/unmarshal a model
> from a source, and then N
Do we really need N libraries each containing two classes?
I would think there should be one interface to marshal/unmarshal a model
from a source, and then N providers. maven-model-tools can provide the main
ones we want to distribute, but others could be plugged in by third parties
if they wanted
11 matches
Mail list logo
