I agree the installation (and running) is painful, I've been thinking of
a Webstart-based jelly-launcher which would help greatly, I think but
had no time doing it.
In the meantime, I think a usable approach is to use directly maven to
run jelly: for each jelly file, you have a project.xml (probably pretty
dumb, but stating dependencies!), a maven.xml doing all you want... and
probably some related files...
As of the non-up-to-date of the maven repository, I think it's simple
enough to use maven to build the tag-libs you want (source from
repository) and build so far as the plug-in is installed in your repository.
Might I recommend, however, that a distribution of jelly is made
somewhere that contains most of the tag-libs ? At least those having
dependencies that can be honoured by ibiblio ?
Certainly, the jelly development, however, would enjoy some responsible
for the taglibs or a fair amount of them. I am not the influencer or
decider but it really looks like it's needed.
Paul
Ken McCloskey wrote:
> I'm quite eager to use Jelly, but I find the installation to be
> difficult and the documentation to be thin and unhelpful. One of the
> reasons I believe Ant has been so successful is that you can download
> it, install it, and use it in a matter of minutes. No lost time, no
> frustration.
>
> Many of the dependencies required to build Jelly are not on ibiblio, for
> example.
>
> Before I invest any more time into it, I'd like to know whether there is
> still a serious ongoing development effort in Jelly.
>
> Ken
|