Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2B21E6426 for ; Wed, 18 May 2011 09:55:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 30997 invoked by uid 500); 18 May 2011 09:55:48 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 30908 invoked by uid 500); 18 May 2011 09:55:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 30900 invoked by uid 99); 18 May 2011 09:55:48 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 May 2011 09:55:48 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of antonio.petrelli@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.171 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.171] (HELO mail-qy0-f171.google.com) (209.85.216.171) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 May 2011 09:55:40 +0000 Received: by qyj19 with SMTP id 19so2634036qyj.9 for ; Wed, 18 May 2011 02:55:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=zhOUhaPXnEbUg3COV9ysO2TF8Af/+LFLgBBbutLzmTw=; b=x239RQbb/4fQWQ75pdd9stFP3wuX4kllsTpg7XvGZaRVpK+tjo6fb93qjMxhBNLQ4S CpRe218pFpvsrMjUUkiXV9SX0C75xc1AGeKV8Tz4m5ZHO2CmbsKGw7YP/jYHItxdY/xU QnaOeLZJ6gOrtSgbNT1NuCuSW59sEzELsJwTk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=Rf6O78EvEHVgvBpi9dbaksMAPGyClSxcphX3i7wE+UDbvJZeDk5Di/MXv3pKAmxLwZ N98HusK6uwpMy1czyMp6qwQUxAL4BiL05KastWxiHlJeMkQjp6zuJE1w7T7N81g6Qifq wEfTuEpT1W2tOu3FeMFTNpj8pwnecJ2o1tK20= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.78.96 with SMTP id j32mr1274486qck.121.1305712519813; Wed, 18 May 2011 02:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.69.23 with HTTP; Wed, 18 May 2011 02:55:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 11:55:19 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [OGNL] drop old opensymphony build From: Antonio Petrelli To: Commons Developers List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=002354471a10ec1b5d04a389e2e3 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --002354471a10ec1b5d04a389e2e3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 2011/5/18 sebb > On 18 May 2011 08:31, Antonio Petrelli wrote: > > 2011/5/17 Henri Yandell > > > >> Looks useful to me. > >> > >> Download the ant task. Use this standard file. Execute. > >> > >> Save us maintaining a pointless build.xml. > >> > > > > I don't think we need it at all. Don't you think that developers are able > to > > download Maven like they did for Ant? > > Maven requires a lot more downloading than just the product. > The first time you use Maven for a build, it will download a lot of > other stuff, much of which is not (yet) needed. > I don't want to start a Maven vs Ant war, but we need to choose only one of those. Providing two ways of building a project is not choice, it increases confusion. What is important to OGNL users is the possibility to use it in a Maven, Ant, Whatever build tool. Since Apache is committed to Maven we *should* use Maven. But Ant users can use Ivy. Other build tools are able to use Maven repository. > I think that presuming that developers want always to use Ant for their > > builds is an insult to their intelligence :-D > > What has intelligence to do with it? This is about providing choice. > What I meant is that developers are able to download and install Maven like they did it for Ant. After some minutes of ranting, they will be able to build the project from source, even if we don't provide an Ant build file. > > > Don't misunderstand me, Ant was a great tool, but now we have to move on, > > like when most of us moved away from Java 1.4. > > Ant still is a great tool. But it has different goals from Maven. > But surely we won't use it as a primary way of building OGNL. What I am trying to say is that it is superfluous to use it even as a secondary way. Adding a plugn for Maven that generates a build file, adds a (minimal) amount of maintenance effort that, IMHO, can be avoided because it does not give a real benefit to final users. Antonio --002354471a10ec1b5d04a389e2e3--