commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@adeptra.com>
Subject Re: unmavenising Commons projects
Date Sat, 22 Jun 2002 13:05:13 GMT
On 6/22/02 2:36 AM, "costinm@covalent.net" <costinm@covalent.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Jun 2002, Henri Yandell wrote:
> 
>> Maven is just another build tool. Why not use it instead of ant in the
>> end? Given the great quality of documentation that Maven has, I think it's
> 
> This is not about using maven of Makefiles - it is about having the
> common sense of making a proposal and discussing it.
> 
> I can't believe this is happening - and in commons of all places !

Are you joking?  I am totally not surprised that it's happening in commons.
It's one of the 'benefits' of the governance model.

> I don't think such a thing would be acceptable in any jakarta project -
> and commons is what many projects depend on.
> 
> 
>> going to be a lot easier for a cvs-user to use than ant currently is.
>> It took me ages to get to the point of having ANT_HOME defined and knowing
>> to always put junit.jar in my ant-lib directory and to get optional jar
>> etc. Maven blows that away. Let's seriously consider a Mavenised Commons.
> 
> Let's first see Maven 1.0 released, see if jakarta projects are switching
> or not, and then do changes in commons.

I don't think we should be *required* to wait for a 1.0 release, as that's
somewhat arbitrary anyway. (Just like I don't think we should be *required*
to use Maven - I choose to use Maven.)

If the Maven developers think that not having a 1.0 release is keeping
people from using it, they will just get their act together and release, I
suppose.  If they do major changes, they will do 2.0.  It's that simple.

I think there are lots of nice things about Maven.  I also think there are
lots of nice things about ant-based builds.  I intend to keep both in Jexl
and Velocity, so I can take advantage of the features of Maven yet still
keep the speed, control and universality of the ant approach.    Not
everyone wants to use Maven - for example, for those that want to do
deployments via ant to lots of production boxes (I have met such people)
then the overhead of maven won't be appealing.

I think that the best thing Maven could do is standardize on a
build-maven.xml file, and produce a build.xml for ant, but of course, that's
an argument for the Maven list.

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. 
Research & Development, Adeptra Inc.
geirm@adeptra.com
+1-203-247-1713



--
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