Very good question. The project information and dependency management aspects, I believe, are the most useful. Maybe we could start small and get that kind of stuff working, and then enhance it at a later date? Thoughts? Please weigh in, everyone. Randall On Jun 15, 2008, at 3:25 PM, Michael Trezzi wrote: > Hello, > I am creating a schema for the Maven2 POM sequencer, however I see > that the POM syntax is HUGE and contains tons of things. I just want > to ask what are your opinions what should be sequenced. There are > basically 2 options: > > a) everything (basically mirroring the XML structure) > b) only a subset for which I would probably take: groupId, > artifactId, version, name, description, url, licenses, dependencies > (all metadata excluding exclusions) > > Thanks in advance for your opinions. > > Michael Trezzi > > _______________________________________________ > dna-dev mailing list > dna-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/dna-dev _______________________________________________ dna-dev mailing list dna-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/dna-dev

It's definitely advantageous to create more capable sequencers that are configurable by administrators. It gives admins the ability and power to configure exactly what they're interested in and what content the repository should be working with. Or, by "user" were you thinking of end users that submitted the artifacts?

Yes, I think this could be a very useful case for Smooks, both in terms of easy of development and flexibility/configuration. It also would be very useful to have a base class that sets up and runs the Smooks transformation. In fact, if Smooks produces SAX events, it may be possible to have the SmooksSequencer extend the XML Seqeuencer class and use Smooks to do the transformation of the input stream into the transformed output, and then let the XML sequencer behavior do the work of converting the transformed Smooks output into the SequencerOutput. Just a wild thought.

BR, Randall On Jun 16, 2008, at 1:24 AM, Stefano Maestri wrote: > Well, > here my question is for you Randall: do you ever think about an > opportunity to configure single sequencer to let the final user the > decision of how many infos sequence? This could be one case where we > could let the user free to decide sequencer's deepness, isn't it? > BTW, this could be another use case for Smooks, and I'm thinking we > could define a specific SmooksSequencer interface to be implemented > by single sequencers, having some hooks for cache and eventually if > you agree for specific configurations about deepness of sequencing. > What about? > > bye > S. > > Randall Hauch wrote on 16/06/08 06:14: >> Very good question. The project information and dependency >> management aspects, I believe, are the most useful. Maybe we could >> start small and get that kind of stuff working, and then enhance it >> at a later date? >> >> Thoughts? Please weigh in, everyone. >> >> Randall >> >> On Jun 15, 2008, at 3:25 PM, Michael Trezzi wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> I am creating a schema for the Maven2 POM sequencer, however I see >>> that the POM syntax is HUGE and contains tons of things. I just >>> want to ask what are your opinions what should be sequenced. There >>> are basically 2 options: >>> >>> a) everything (basically mirroring the XML structure) >>> b) only a subset for which I would probably take: groupId, >>> artifactId, version, name, description, url, licenses, dependencies >>> (all metadata excluding exclusions) >>> >>> Thanks in advance for your opinions. >>> >>> Michael Trezzi >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dna-dev mailing list >>> dna-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/dna-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dna-dev mailing list >> dna-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/dna-dev >