On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 3:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Niall Pemberton schrieb: > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 3:09 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On 27/02/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:27 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > On 27/02/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:07 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > > > On 27/02/2008, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:42 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > <inceptionYear>2001</inceptionYear> > >> > > > > > > <maven.compile.source>1.3</maven.compile.source> > >> > > > > > > <maven.compile.target>1.3</maven.compile.target> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > The whole idea of commons-parent is that we don't have to explicitly > >> > configure everything in the component pom's - you set it in the parent > >> > and override only if necessary. So while it may only be three lines in > >> > EACH component pom - I'm against adopting what you say as a principle. > >> > > >> > >> I am not suggesting that all the defaults in the parent POM should be > removed. > >> > >> What I am saying is that it *is necessary* for projects to override > >> *these items*. > >> > > > > Well I don't agree with you - its a bad principle to set requiring > > duplicatiion for any items and IMO *its not necessary* for *these > > items* > > Guys, you need to drink a cold beer together :-)
Always ready for a beer and happy to buy a round at ApacheCon :) > I would agree with Sebb that setting inceptionYear is not helpful. It > varies too much from commons project to project to be a useful default; > it's more likely to just cause projects to declare an incorrect > inceptionYear. But it reflects the inception year of commons as a whole and taking it out doesn't make it correct in components. If its that big a deal then go through all the components poms and check that its present and correct. Niall > The compile.source and compile.target settings seem reasonable though. > > The "target" setting means that by default the bytecode is at least > loadable on a 1.3 JVM, which avoids projects accidentally generating > 1.5-only bytecode, while doing no great harm (a very minor performance > penalty for projects that forget to set it). That seems useful. > > The "source" setting means use of any jsf1.4 or jsf1.5 language features > will cause a compile error. This > seems a good idea, preventing projects that mean to be 1.3 or 1.4 > compatible from accidentally introducing incompatible syntax. Projects > that want to be 1.5-compatible will pretty quickly override this setting! > > Of course nothing currently stops projects from invoking methods that > are not in the target runtime, but these settings seem to be at least a > good start. > > Cheers, > Simon > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
