On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> ...
> > I think it is better to save our efforts by using any of the projects
> > related to this tasks. The idea, is to have a better project management
> > with less effort than we currently have with Ant. Is that right?
>
> Correct.
>
> I strongly think that moving to Maven now will be a major and
> unnecessary disruption in our development process, and I don't want to
> see it.
>
> As I said, it's quite easy to have almost all that Maven provides by
> using other stuff.
>
> What do we want from Maven?
Or Centipede (it's still proposed, isn't it?)
> 1 - jar downloads: use Ruper or Ant <get>
Nobody said Ant wasn't capable doing so
> 2 - generic targets? Heck, we already have them.
What you mean with generic targets? The Maven reactor?
> 3 - what else? Don't tell me activity reports, because it's an
> Ant task that Maven simply uses.
No, no, reports and document generation in Maven suck from our POV as
they are using different build tools (Anakia vs. Forrest) and DTDs.
Just:
- simpler build scripts (because of cents/antlibs/plugins)
ATM we have 1500+ line spread into 14 differet files included by
XML-Entity definitions
- deployment of created stuff like jars to repositories for other to
be used
- snapshot dependancy resolution (which we have used alot in the past)
- ease of modularisation capabilities
> Let's not go into a massive build-system change that will make it even
> harder to sense what's happening, and lay out what we need.
>
> NOTE: I'm the original Centipede author, so yes, I'm definately baised
:-) I knew this would happen
--
Giacomo Pati
Otego AG, Switzerland - http://www.otego.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
