incubator-cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Dusbabek <>
Subject Re: Thoughts on issue 697 (Mitigate unpublished dependencies when using Cassandra with Maven)
Date Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:24:29 GMT
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 12:42, Hannes Schmidt <> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 6:21 AM, Gary Dusbabek <> wrote:
>> Cassandra is a community of volunteers.  If someone is willing to take
>> that half-hour and make Cassandra a mvn-friendly place and maintain it
>> whilst moving forward, I say let it happen.  Make it easy for us to
>> package a release and push it to a repo.
> Ahh, the standard OS defense. ;-) I would deploy these jars to the public
> Maven repo in a second, if I had the creds to do so.

What we really need is someone to own this by being willing to support
mvn users, respond to the jira tickets they generate, and send patches
to the committers.

>> Nobody has stepped up to do this though.  We had a pom in trunk for
>> quite a while.  None of the developers used it, and therefore had no
>> motivation to maintain it.
> None of them used it probably because it's hidden the contrib folder and
> they already had a working Ant build. You can't seriously maintain two build
> systems for a project. It doesn't make sense and that's why nobody adopted
> the alternative build system.

It was in the root of trunk.

>> > Sorry for the rant but taking shortcuts like this forces every Maven
>> > user
>> > down the stream to either do the work for you, e.g to deploy the
>> > Cassandra
>> > JAR and its dependencies to their local repository or take the very same
>> > shortcut.
>> I disagree that every project should do things the mvn way for the
>> sake of making things easier for mvn users.
> No, but maybe every Apache project should?

Why?  "To make things easier for mvn users" isn't enough of an
argument to convince me.

>> > If I want to use the client in my own Maven-built project, I
>> > can't do so without manually deploying those two JARs along with the
>> > Hector
>> > JAR to my local repository.
>> >
>> I've been there, and I feel your pain.  Pushing three jars to your
>> local repo isn't a big deal though.  If you're working on a team,
>> deploying three more jars on your nexus repo isn't too hard either.
> Why don't you do it then? If you did it, you'd save many others from having
> to do it. This isn't a you-vs-me kinda problem. It's a you-vs-many problem.

I don't wish to be the one to support it.  Past experience has turned
me off to mvn.  I have a me-vs-mvn problem.

>> Gary.
>> > To add fuel to the fire, I don't think that there is a real need for
>> > two coexisting build systems for Cassandra (I'm speaking of Ant/Ivy and
>> > Maven) but even if you decide to go with Ant/Ivy, the resulting
>> > artifacts
>> > should all be accessible in a public Maven repository. This is pretty
>> > much a
>> > convention for any OS project of Cassandra's reach and maturity.
>> >
>> > -- Hannes
>> >
> If I had more trust in the team's motivation to embrace a what I believe is
> a truly better build tool than Ant/Ivy I would spend the time of migrating
> Cassandra to Maven on an experimental branch and let you guys take a look.
> But for this to work and be true evidence of Maven's superiority, the jars
> in libs/ need to go away, hence this thread.

I think that's an unfair judgment.  Seriously--what's stopping you
sending in a patch that updates the pom and leaves us with artifacts
that can be pushed to a mvn repo?  Wouldn't that satisfy your needs.


View raw message