maven-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: New site content
Date Fri, 03 Jan 2014 16:21:58 GMT
On 3 January 2014 16:09, Robert Scholte <rfscholte@apache.org> wrote:

> Op Fri, 03 Jan 2014 16:46:33 +0100 schreef Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com>:
>
>
>  On 3 January 2014 15:17, Robert Scholte <rfscholte@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> I like the idea of images, however I would avoid a graph to make
>>> something
>>> clear for new Maven users.
>>> Instead I'd prefer a linear model.
>>>
>>>
>> My first draft did not have the graph at the top... perhaps it would be
>> better suited at the bottom ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think you should split the current model into pieces:
>>>
>>> A project model contains:
>>> - dependencies
>>> - a build plan
>>> - other project models ( you can call this the Droste effect[1] )
>>>
>>>
>> I like to think of the project model as not just the root pom.xml but all
>> the pom.xml files, so there is only one project model, this should make
>> understanding how -pl, -am and -amd switches have their effects
>>
>>
>>
> IMO these switches are way too detailed for a 60 sec tutorial. I even
> think that a large group of the average Maven users don't know these
> switches or use them.
>
>
>  - ...
>>>
>>> There are several build-plans, namely: a build-plan for jar, war, ear,
>>> etc.
>>> Every build plan has a set of predefined plugins,  which you can adjust
>>> (with switches?)
>>>
>>>
>> No there is one and only one build plan. We would have to redefine build
>> plan everywhere else to be able to use it like that. There is a lifecycle
>> binding for each packaging
>>
>>
>>
> Then buildplan is too abstract. With a real world example: the buildplan
> for a house and a bike are completely different. Unless you say: you have a
> design, some goods, you mix those goods and you have your product.
> Not a useful plan IMO.
> At least keep the audience in mind: do they need to know the actual
> implementation or do they first need to understand the overall process. I
> think the latter is more important, even if this conflicts a bit with the
> idiom used by experienced Maven users.
> What if we call it "build instructions" (per packaging type) ?


Well I have no issue with saying that each packaging has a template for how
when to use plugins during the lifecycle.

But the build plan is the plan of what will be done, and it is a well used
term in Maven.

The lifecycle is also a well used term in Maven.

This is the 20,000ft reference that lets people get to understand what
these terms are... I think it is OK for it to skim over the detail (we can
make the images be links to more detail as people need it), but I don't
believe we do anyone a service by avoiding introducing our core concepts...
especially if these core concepts and their poor understanding are part of
the root for the misuse and misunderstanding of maven by a large body of
people


>
>
>
>>> Now, what does Maven do?
>>>
>>> Maven reads the build plan and executes it. Some steps of the build plan
>>> deliver products ( compiled classes, test results, a package)
>>>
>>> I think the reactor might be confusing at this level.
>>>
>>>
>> I want the 60sec tutorial to be the grand overview, the next tutorial is a
>> 5 minute one on how a .jar file gets built
>>
>> Then you have a multi-module webapp tutorial at 10-15min
>>
>> I want to reference all the core concepts from the 60 second overview even
>> if only briefly, that way people can come back to the short page and say
>> "ahh yes that is where that fits in again"
>>
>>
>>
>>> my 2 cents,
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droste_effect
>>>
>>>
>>> Op Fri, 03 Jan 2014 15:41:15 +0100 schreef Stephen Connolly <
>>> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>  Just in case it wasn't clear... I'm looking for comments and feedback
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3 January 2014 14:35, Stephen Connolly
>>>> <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  OK, so to start working on new content I created some pages on the
>>>> wiki:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The first page is a 60 seconds overview of Maven's build process
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/
>>>>> Tutorial:+Maven+in+60+seconds
>>>>>
>>>>> I am using icons because I want to have subsequent pages give more
>>>>> detail
>>>>> and use the iconography to enable people to see what is being discussed
>>>>> more easily
>>>>>
>>>>>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message