maven-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason van Zyl <>
Subject RE: How set in project.xml ?
Date Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:39:59 GMT
On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 17:00, W. Sean Hennessy wrote:
> A point of order..
> "currently flexible property with a rigid standard"
> is not entirely accurate.
> "target/" is not a property, it is hard coded.
> The discussion is about changing this hard coded directory name to a property like ${target-dir-nm}.

It's already ${} it's just that many people use the
hard-coded target/.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lester Ward [] 
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:38 PM
> To: 'Maven Users List'
> Subject: RE: How set in project.xml ?
> > Your analysis is simply erroneous. We don't make changes
> > arbitrarily for the sake of making changes or to cause users 
> > long-term grief. So far I think I've done all right in OSS 
> > using similiar practices that I employ for Maven.
> I agree. Maven is a wonderful piece of technology.
> > Velocity, Apache XmlRpc, OJB, BCEL are all and
> > haven't fallen prey to disuse yet.
> Nor has Maven. Sorry if I gave the impression that I thought it had. My point was only
that I've seen projects
> disintegrate when they began to insist that the rest of the world conform to them _unnecessarily_.
> I think the basic issue I (and, I think, some of the other posters) have is that they
don't see why fixing the target
> directory in place is _necessary_. What benefit does it provide to fix it in place? Why
is that benefit worth more than
> the flexibility of the current system?
> > Again, I believe you are wrong and that given the benefits
> > users derive from Maven they will eventually start asking 
> > makers of tools to accommodate Maven's methods of development.
> Some will. Some won't. That will cause pain (if Maven becomes less flexible) for those
who want to use the systems that
> won't conform. My experience is that open source developers tend not to have to deal
with such pain, so are overly
> unsympathetic towards it. I can agree to disagree here, though.
> > I don't feel compelled to defend my philosophy because it manifests 
> > itself in Maven and you're obviously using it so you must already 
> > agree to some extent. And I can see that you care because you're 
> > arguing with me which I take as a compliment.
> I do care. The reason I am posting is that you appear to be on the verge of changing
the philosophy used in Maven (i.e.
> replacing a currently flexible property with a rigid standard).
> Wordman
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Jason van Zyl

In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
  -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society

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

View raw message