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 Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:45:17 GMT
Noone is trying to stage a revolution. Maven seamlessly works on top of 
ant.... I don't get the fear - where is it coming from, what is it about?
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Work:      http://www.multitask.com.au
Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers

Juozas Baliuka <baliuka@mwm.lt> wrote on 06/25/2002 12:06:41 AM:

> 
> Yes, sorry I was confused by this thread.
>   It always happens with migration to new tools.
>   I think our users will be confused too. We must find some way to 
migrate 
> without revolution.
> 
> At 23:56 2002.06.24 +1000, dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
> >Maven does not remove build files or ant.
> >--
> >dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
> >Work:      http://www.multitask.com.au
> >Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers
> >
> >
> >
> >Juozas Baliuka <baliuka@mwm.lt>
> >06/24/02 06:27 PM
> >Please respond to "Jakarta Commons Developers List"
> >
> >
> >To
> >"Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>,
> >"Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
> >cc
> >
> >bcc
> >
> >Subject
> >Re: unmavenising Commons projects
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Hi,
> >Found this about Maven and Ant.
> >Maven: "Maven is a Java project management and project comprehension
> >tool."
> >Ant:     "Apache Ant is a Java-based build tool."
> >
> >   It must not be problem to integrate "Maven + Ant", "Maven +
> >ANY_BUILD_TOOL", "Ant + ANY_IDE_OR_project_management_TOOL".
> >   It must be no problems for integration, Ant is already  integrated 
with
> >the most known tools.
> >   Is it some political problems ?
> >
> >   I use a lot of tools some of them are "bad" and some are "good", it 
is
> >not a problem to use a new one,
> >   but I am not going to use it if it "replaces" Ant,  It because Ant 
is
> >standard to build my projects.
> >   I don't have a good project management tool and I see Maven is this
> >tool,
> >   I like Maven, but I can't use it, if I will need to remove my build 
tool
> >
> >or it is impossible to build my project without project management tool
> >   and build code without documentation generator.
> >
> >   Do, I need to write build files myself for "mavenised" projects, or 
I
> >*must* to download, install and read "How to" to build some "util" ?
> >   I think, I will write this "util" myself, if I can't use standard 
way to
> >
> >build it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >At 16:50 2002.06.24 +1000, dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
> >
> >
> > >costinm@covalent.net wrote on 06/24/2002 04:27:34 PM:
> > >
> > > > All I'm saying is that Gump proves it is technically possible to
> > > > accomodate each project build file and style of tracking 
dependencies,
> > > > without any pain on the projects themself.
> > >
> > >Maven does not try to do what Gump does, i.e. use the existing build 
file
> > >and add a new document to tell it how to run. It does something
> >different.
> > >It tries to remove the need for duplicate hand coded build files 
along
> >with
> > >a load of other stuff.
> > >
> > > > Gump is hard to use and the implementations is very bad - but
> > > > it _can_ build the entire jakarta without changing a single
> > > > file or 'deprecating' ant build files.
> > >So it should, that's it's goal.
> > >
> > > > Nobody ever sugested that Gump would be used by a regular user -
> > > > but I'm willing to wait for a easy to use tool that have the same
> > > > power as gump.
> > > >
> > > > And if Maven can't do it - it's clearly not the tool for me, it
> > > > doesn't solve my itches. And I don't think it's a right tool
> > > > for commons.
> > >What 'power' does Gump have? 'All' it does is run existing build 
files.
> >If
> > >that's your itch, you should stick to Gump. Maven is not what you 
need.
> > >
> > > > Well, replacing the build.xml and the established conventions
> > > > a project uses is not necesarily a 'value'. Gump may be ugly, but
> > > > it provides a value - without most people even knowing about
> > > > it.
> > >Maven doesn't have to replace the existing build file. This is just 
your
> > >bitch about how it was implemented in commons. In theory we could say 
the
> > >same thing about ant 1.5 features moving into build files.
> > >
> > > > All apache ( java ) projects are 'gump'-ised, and we just had to
> > > > change some properties here and there.
> > >What a load of it. I've had to produce the gump descriptor and
> > >dependencies, track down bugs in Xerces, deprecations in JDOM and 
more.
> > >This is not just change a few properties. I'm happy to do this, but
> >please
> > >don't tell me Gump comes at little cost. Maybe you've not had to do 
it.
> > >
> > > > :-) I know how amazingly painfully it is, had few problems in 
tomcat.
> >But
> > >
> > > > it's a value we really need.
> > >100% agreed.
> > >
> > > > I think that too. But I have to accept that other people have
> >different
> > > > tastes and other projects have different needs.
> > > >
> > > > I usually use a wrapper or just gump - I'm not happy about that, 
but
> > > > that's how things are.
> > >That's not acceptable. Would you like me to -1 any changes on commons
> >build
> > >files that take them away from some standard? That would 'fix' the
> >problem
> > >and bring some consistency to the build files.
> > >
> > > > Then why does it mess with the build.xml and the build process ?? 
When
> > > > it can do builds and what gump does, we can discuss about using it
> > > > to build commons components, tomcat, whatever.
> > >This just shows your lack of understanding about what Maven is and 
how it
> > >works. It doesn't *have* to mess with the build file, that's just how 
it
> > >was implemented here.
> > >
> > > > For all the other features  - if they are not too hard to use from 
a
> > > > build.xml with ant and some taksdefs, I'll be happy to try and see
> >them
> > > > in commons and all jakarta projects.
> > >Again, that's not the way Maven works. it's not just a collection of
> > >Taskdefs. It's a set of build files that perform all the standard 
stuff
> > >that happens in a project: jar, compile, test, javadoc, dist, docs,
> > >deploy-site, send announcements etc.... They are very easy to use 
from a
> > >build file with ant, they are effectively just targets to add to your
> > >standard build file.
> > >
> > > > Just don't try to present ant as 'legacy' and replace the 
build.xml
> > > > and the conventions we use with something else.
> > >Who is? Where has someone declared ant as 'legacy'? And please tell 
me
> > >about the consistent conventions used across commons....
> > >
> > > > I can't 'select' a build.xml format, and I don't think you or
> > > > maven can, and I don't think it's even right.
> > >Why not? Taglibs did....
> > >
> > > > It is perfectly possible to use gump-like descriptors to wrap
> > > > any possible build.xml style and provide a consistent behavior
> > > > and build process. That's already proven.
> > >And that's not the point of Maven. Why make people write build files 
when
> > >the functionality they want is bog standard and has been written a
> >million
> > >times before. Maven reduces the friction of project startup by 
removing
> >the
> > >need to write all those targets yourself.
> > >
> > > > Set some standard target names and rules in maven, and
> > > > make build-maven.xml _wrap_ the original component's build.xml.
> > > > Then users can call maven and have the consistent build.
> > >That's what we already have, Costin. It's just that the person
> >implementing
> > >it here decided to replace rather than augment the existing build 
file.
> > >
> > > > There is no standard way to write a makefile, and it'll never
> > > > be. Build systems like RPM are just adapting to the build
> > > > process, and so does gump. You can build almost any linux
> > > > package with 'rpm -ba', and you can build any jakarta project
> > > > with the gump's 'build.sh project-name'.
> > >After 6 weeks worth of setting up gump maybe.
> > >
> > > > I can't believe it's impossible to implement the gump features
> > > > in a user-friendly way and with java instead of .bash. If Maven
> > > > can't do it, we'll just have to wait for something else.
> > >Maven != Gump for the thousandth time. Maven is not trying to be 
Gump.
> >Man,
> > >I sound like a broken record.
> > >
> > >--
> > >dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
> > >Work:      http://www.multitask.com.au
> > >Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >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>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >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>
> 


--
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