commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From d...@multitask.com.au
Subject Re: unmavenising Commons projects
Date Sat, 22 Jun 2002 07:34:33 GMT
Costin,

what if Maven, as planned for b5, doesn't require a build file? That way 
you could keep your build file and everyone else could use maven without 
changing it.

What is the base functionality for the build file? Equivalent to the maven 
build process?
What about generating the site? Is that to be replicated in the build file 
as well? Running tests? javadocs?

As for waiting for other jakarta projects - why? 

Do other jakarta projects also rely only on a 1.0 release of a product? I 
remember using Struts for a long time before a 1.0 was released.

I understand your point, but I don't see any clear message other than 
asking for a vote, and that comes back to a vote on what? One of the 
reasons people have moved to maven has been the unwieldy build files 
created for projects like commons.
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Work:      http://www.multitask.com.au
Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers



costinm@covalent.net
06/22/02 04:36 PM
Please respond to "Jakarta Commons Developers List"


To
Jakarta Commons Developers List <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
cc

bcc

Subject
Re: unmavenising Commons projects



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 ! 
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. 

There are badly written build.xml files, and a lack of common conventions 
- but so far gump seems to be able to deal with each projects' style 
without asking anyone to change their build files.



Costin


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




--
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