avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <nicola...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Quick comparison between centipede and Maven
Date Wed, 08 May 2002 20:34:20 GMT
From: "Berin Loritsch" <bloritsch@apache.org>

> Centipede provides a directory layout for you to fit your project into.
> This may be ok for some new projects, but it is a pain to retrofit a
> project.  Also, there isn't much to say what is really necessary, or
> what is Centipede's idea of a good thing to have.  For example: what are
> the "target" directories for?

We are all in development, as you know.
Documentation is coming, and the new site has more.

> Maven also has a directory layout, however you only need to create the
> src/java and src/test directories and the project descriptor.  If there
> is anything you want to override in the default directory layout like
> the
> position of xdocs, you change a property.  It is less obvious how to do
> it in centipede.

layout.xml has all the mappings.

> If you have no xdocs directory, Maven will create it
> for you, adding the default docs for you.

This is a RFE for us, that of not having to have all directories if not
needed.

> Centipede provides a nice menu system for ease of use and a progress bar
> for the build process.  Unfortunately the progress bar doesn't really
> advance as the build progresses.  Sometimes, I would rather just have
> the build create the jar for me.

build jar

> Maven does not add any of these creature features.  However, it also
> doesn't require you to use the "build.(sh|bat)" scripts.  You can use
> an installed version of ant without problem.  Centipede requires the
> Ant 1.5 tool.

Well, you could use an installed version of Ant 1.5 *if* Ant wasn't bugged
by the fact that it forces you to put optional jars in it's dir structure.
If you want extensibility, you can't user installed Ant.

> Centipede does not force you into one way of doing things.
> Architecturally,
> I like the flexibility--although its complexity can be a bit scary to
> newcomers.  Centipede needs a way of hiding the complexity from the
> user.

+1

> Maven forces only one way of doing things.  While this does add to the
> simplicity of the system, which is good, it does not easily alow users
> with different needs or viewpoints on site design to change the
> defaults.
>
>                                  -oOo-
>
> Both projects would definitely benefit from a script to generate the
> framework for a new project.  That should include the project
> descriptors,
> the prescribed directory structure, and the option to override that
> structure.

There is an effort underway.

> Since both projects aim to ease build experiences and ensure
> a standard set of docs, the script/project utility would help change
> certain things about the project over its lifetime.  That would be
> better than manually editing files without being sure what you are
> doing is the correct thing.

This too.

> For now, I have to say that Maven has centipede beat on the "getting
> started" tip.  However, I have to say that centipede has Maven beat
> on extensibility.

Some people started more easily with Maven, some with Centipede.

It depends on how you have used ant in the past.

--
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
            - verba volant, scripta manent -
   (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message