commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com>
Subject Re: unmavenising Commons projects
Date Mon, 24 Jun 2002 01:10:56 GMT
On Sat, 2002-06-22 at 17:13, costinm@covalent.net wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2002, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> 
> > If we are going to do that then we should also specify a standard which
> > is the point of Maven: to unify the build process. Commons components
> 
> I don't think you can 'unify' the build process by forcing everyone to
> use a single style and stop using 'legacy' ant. Even with all the problems
> it has, gump shows very clearly that it is possible to create an unified
> build process where each project can keep it's own style.

Listen man, I haven't tried to force anyone to use Maven. Every project
in the commons that is now using Maven I either explicitly asked to
change the build system so there was a consensus, or the committers for
the component changed it themselves. I did not cry for a mass conversion
because I think that it will happen on its own as it has. I have
certainly nudged people but if Maven didn't provide something valuable
people wouldn't have switched their projects willingly.
 
> I don't think I'll use maven to build projects until it is at least
> at the same level with gump. 

You ask you average user how easy it would be to build something with
Gump versus Maven. I don't think there is any comparison there, trying
to build something with Gump is a nightmare and I have first hand,
extended, long and drawn out experience. Having Gump be used for a
backward compatibility testing tool run by Sam is a very different thing
then a normal mortal being able to build anything with Gump. The former
is highly useful and has been an effective tool for Sam to find problems
with particular projects, for the latter I believe it's effectively
useless. Two very different things.
 
> If you can make Maven to use the existing build.xml files ( which 
> shouldn't be very difficult, if Gump can do it with shell and xslt ) - 
> I'll switch to maven. If you can support the gump project descriptors,
> then all jakarta will be buit with maven, and I don't think anyone
> could complain

That was never the primary goal. Maven showed it's first face as
something like Gump because it was originally in the Alexandria
repository but the primary goal of Maven was to provide something of
value to an individual project. Starting from this I think real progress
can be made toward inter-project efforts like Gump. Within Jakarta some
projects maintain their own descriptors but most people don't even know
what it is.

> As for 'common policy/style' for all commons packages - yes, it
> would be nice, but so far we don't seem to have any agreement
> on this. 

That IMO is a serious problem. Users having to build all the different
components are confronted the 2-3 very different ways of building
components which is silly for the 'commons'. I don't care what the
build.xml format is but I think one should be chosen.

> And that's a pretty good sign that it's the build system
> that should be able to adapt, instead of forcing everyone in
> jakarta to adapt to a new build system. 

Maven isn't a build system like Gump. There is a tool that is being made
called the Reactor that will be able to do things like Gump and it will
deal with your typical build.xml file. Again, this wasn't the original
goal for Maven.

> 
> This has nothing to do with the subject of this thread - which is 
> the requirement to discuss and vote on major changes, like deprecating
> the ant build file ( which happened in commons ). 

If the discussion is only to select Ant as the baseline and not
selecting a build.xml format then the discussion is useless IMO because
you're not solving any real user problem. The components are still a
PITA to build.

If a build.xml file is going to be generated then I want to generate one
that commons users are familiar with. There has never been any
discussion of what the build system would be other than Ant which is too
vague to be practically useful. I wish in the charter there had been a
mandated build.xml file. I know that was the intention as all the
original components had the same build system. One should have been
picked and we should have used it. I've stated my opinion before but
having myriad possibilities in the build system is detrimental. You want
to build a JAR, who needs to be creative with a build.xml file. Nobody
gives a shit, just make it work. That's all any of the users want and
they don't have that now and just saying we are going to use ant with a
build.xml file isn't going to make anything better.

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

Jason van Zyl
jason@apache.org
http://tambora.zenplex.org

In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
  
  -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society


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


Mime
View raw message