commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: unmavenising Commons projects
Date Mon, 24 Jun 2002 13:56:29 GMT
Maven does not remove build files or ant.
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting

Juozas Baliuka <>
06/24/02 06:27 PM
Please respond to "Jakarta Commons Developers List"

"Jakarta Commons Developers List" <>, 
"Jakarta Commons Developers List" <>


Re: unmavenising Commons projects

Found this about Maven and Ant.
Maven: "Maven is a Java project management and project comprehension 
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 
  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, wrote:

> 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 
>It tries to remove the need for duplicate hand coded build files along 
>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. 
>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 
>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. 
> > it's a value we really need.
>100% agreed.
> > I think that too. But I have to accept that other people have 
> > 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 
>files that take them away from some standard? That would 'fix' the 
>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 
> > 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 
>times before. Maven reduces the friction of project startup by removing 
>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 
>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 ' 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. 
>I sound like a broken record.
>dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <>

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message