Le 04/04/2026 à 14:39, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
Im not sure what you mean by not xml parsers are low
In this debate, when we raised the argument that changing the namespace
makes more difficult to use standard XML tools, it has been objected
that no-one should use standard tools anyway and that POM should be read
only through Maven API. I disagree, but this point is nevertheless
important because this namespace change debate indeed become a small
detail if the POM files are not intended to be read by standard
namespace-aware tools.
For model version v4.0.0/v4.1.0, ignoring the namespace but capturing
it to be able to have the info is the easiest to handle it - at least
with jaxb.
Configuring JAXB for ignoring the namespace is indeed a workaround,
similar to configuring `javac` for ignoring warnings. It just hides the
problem.
I know xslt is referenced a lot but that is just a way to map models
The email that Chris has sent a few hours ago was not about using XSLT
for mapping models. He was using the way that XSLT schema is declared as
an example of how different versions of a XML schema are managed by the
organisation who defines XML.
a superset of both models is way easier to maintain than a mapping
with a third pivot format (for now).
Yes I agree: what you just described is option B. With option B, the
Maven 4 POM is a superset of the Maven 3 POM. But with option A, the two
POMs are completely unrelated from a XML point of view: none of them is
a superset of the other, which is the reason why option A is more
difficult than option B to handle using standard namespace-aware XML
tools. Not impossible to handle, but more difficult.
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
