gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <>
Subject Re: maven, gump, developer effort (was: Re: [status] main issues)
Date Thu, 07 Oct 2004 23:50:19 GMT
> I will assert that maven is the root problem (no offense intended to the
> maven people, I'm rather happy with maven recently otherwise). Maven is

No offense taken :) However, I don't think Maven itself is the problem
- as Adam has said, building works fine until we get to conflicting
dependency IDs. I'll discuss this against Adam's mail.

> not built to have other stuff control it, ie it is not very embeddable
> (unlike ant). 

This is true - but this is not how gump uses it?

> It is also not properly bootstrappable. 

I'm not entirely sure this is correct. Some small work would need to
be done to get it to play with gump, but this is on the Maven build,
not on Maven itself. I haven't pursued this because I don't want it to
be "one more thing to break the build chain" until everyone is
comfortable with it as it stands.

> It also has too
> many complex dependencies itself.

I've started cutting these down for Maven 1.1. I think dom4j and jelly
will always be problematic in the Maven 1.0 lifecycle though.

> I will assert as well that this problem goes away with maven2
> ( and
>, being
> built using an IoC container and all as it is.

I think it will still build in the same way (jar overrides), but it
should be a whole lot easier to play with. You're right - you could
completely replace the artifact location mechanism if you wanted.


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

View raw message