Don't confuse "shorter" with "more readable". I don't mind going for
the "<id>mygroup/myartiact</id>" instead of attributes. I just wanted
to note that the existing syntax is (perhaps) *too* verbose...
I definitly agree with your example, and maintainance takes priority
over number-of-source-lines...but when you reach 20..30 dependencies,
things get messy... Some might argue that having 20 dependencies might
indicate a hidden problem, but even with 10 dependencies, combined
with a real-world <build> and <plugins> section, you get a pretty big
POM...
Anyway, just my 2cents ;-)
On 12/17/05, Eric Redmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -0
>
> Support for both should be out of the question. Double the documentation,
> double the confusion, double the possibility for error proneness.
>
> Readability is very important. I've never been a big fan of the "less lines"
> argument. Sure:
>
> if(a!=null){a+=" label";System,out.println(a);}
>
> may be less lines than:
>
> if ( a!=null )
> {
> a += " label";
> System,out.println( a );
> }
>
> However, I'd rather maintain the second than the first. Since maintinence of
> code (and, by extension, the POM) is a larger percentage of the development
> lifecycle than the initial writing, that is the more important piece to
> pander too.
>
> I'm all for removing some of the verbosity of the POM. I kind of like the
> <id>groupId/artifactId</id> syntax. But that's a far cry from cramming
> everything onto a single, unreadable ( hyperbole :) ), line.
>
> Eric
>
> On 12/17/05, Arik Kfir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > That's a good point....question is: Is readability of pom.xml a
> > good-enough feature? (which brings us back to a matter of taste
> > hehehee)
> >
> > On 12/17/05, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "why not keep both camps happy? :) "
> > >
> > > I would personally have them spend time on bugs fixes and new functional
> > features than rewrite something that is a matter of taste.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Arik Kfir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 7:30 AM
> > > To: Maven Users List
> > > Subject: Re: Is it possible to make pom.xml simpler?
> > >
> > > We all agree that it is really a matter of taste. That's precisely why
> > Maven *should* support another theme.
> > >
> > > I definitly agree that whether attributes are more readable or not is
> > arguable (at best) - but why not keep both camps happy? :) (if the costs
> > are reasonable of course)
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/17/05, Alexandre Poitras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > A simple XSLT stylesheet would do the job there. You don't need maven
> > > > to support this format.
> > > >
> > > > On 12/17/05, Thomas Van de Velde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > -1
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with Brett. This is a matter of taste. My taste goes
> > > > > towards the existing solution. Writing everything on a single line
> > > > > may even become less readable. Have you ever tried to read an
> > > > > Eclipse .classpath file? You can hardly say that's more readeable.
> > > > > I also think that mixing attributes with elements is in this case a
> > bad idea and would hurt overall consistency.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/17/05, Srepfler Srgjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >If your sole concern is the number of lines one must type, it is
> > > > > > >certainly an option to have meta-pom.xml be in the format you
> > > > > > >find most comfortable, then xslt it into the "more verbose" m2
> > pom.xml.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >This argument of attributes versus elements has existed since the
> > > > > > >dawn of [xml] time. I am not trying to argue one way or the
> > > > > > >other, but since
> > > > > > >m1 pom used the "more verbose" syntax, it eases the transition.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My USD$0.02,
> > > > > > > -- /v\atthew
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > >----
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > In fact people should develop a plugin that maps the simplified
> > > > > > and verbose schemas on the fly :) The advantage of using
> > > > > > namespaces is that you can create a your tag and map it to the
> > > > > > verbose tag from the official pom.
> > > > > > That's the way I've seen the spring guys use it for now but the
> > > > > > advantage that I see is that in could be much easier to extend the
> > > > > > pom and it would be more "type safe"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My 0.02MKD
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Alexandre Poitras
> > > > Québec, Canada
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > > _____________________________________
> > > Arik Kfir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > _____________________________________
> > Arik Kfir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
--
Regards,
_____________________________________
Arik Kfir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
