cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <blorit...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Ant/Maven/Centipede discussion
Date Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:15:39 GMT
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:

> Le Mardi, 30 sep 2003, à 14:43 Europe/Zurich, Berin Loritsch a écrit :
> 
>> ...Things like ANT should
>> be installed like the tool that it is...
> 
> 
> I see your point, but IMHO the big advantage with including ANT is that 
> the only requirement on the users is to install a JDK.

We are talking about professional people here.  Developers.  Hopefully,
if they are planning on building Cocoon, they would know enough on how
to install ANT.  How much hand-holding do we want to do?

For developer's, there should be only a little bit.  I.e. a BUILDING.txt
or something like that to explain the steps involved should be enough
for a developer.  We aren't talking average users here.  Average users
should use released builds.

> As we're currently distributing Cocoon in source code, requiring users 
> to install the correct version of ant would certainly increase the 
> traffic on the users list with al sorts of mysterious problems, 
> duplicate ant setups where you get the wrong version in the path, etc.

So you are asking users to build Cocoon?  -1.  You are asking for trouble.
Try binary releases for users, leaving source code for people who have a
clue what to do with it.

> In projects where I'm working we do it slightly differently, we have a 
> parallel CVS module for tools, shared between projects, with directory 
> names including version numbers, and the build.sh script accesses the 
> appropriate version of the tool with relative paths like
> 
>   ../cvs-tools-sandbox/ant/1.5.1
> 
> With avoids heavy duplication of tools yet allows each project to use 
> the "right" version of a tool.

Still -1.  While this can be a "special" issue, ANT 1.6 should be backwards
compatible with ANT 1.5.1.  I know that 1.5.4 is.  They have a number of
test cases to verify that.

What you are doing is duplicating the tools--no way around that.  One install
per machine should work.  I have not run into any issues with that.


-- 

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
  deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                 - Benjamin Franklin


Mime
View raw message