Really? I think our build is great. We just cloned it for a project we're working on.
I'm a -1 for Maven for primary build. Ant works fine and I'm pissed that we need to do all of this to get a frigging pom file and a majic jar full of Maven meta-bs? Jeeez. If someone else is willing to do all the work to get us there, I'm cool with that. But it MUST still be a one-click build. No external dependencies or extra steps, and preferrably no downloading.....argh. I hate maven. And I'm a -10000 for Maven generated website. Remember, we have .NET and Ruby projects too. Cheers, Grumpy Clinton On 2/13/07, Larry Meadors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I like the idea - it makes the checkout faster, and "mvn idea:idea" is worth it's weight in gold, and our current build.xml is a bugger, I hate it. So, I wonder if we can skin the generated site to make it not look like crap^H^H^H^H every other maven generated site. :-) Larry On 2/12/07, Brandon Goodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey Guys, > > I wanted to throw a bone out to everyone and ask the question "Should we use > Maven for our build?". I put together a POM today that makes use of the > current iBATIS SQL Map structures. It is pretty darn simple and required > very little effort. The largest amount of my time was spent refactoring the > TestCL (Test Classloader) to use the current thread classloader as a parent > due to some incompatibilities with how Maven runs it's test. That aside, I > was surprised at how little effort it took to get the iBATIS SQLMap jar > built. Plus, Because of the dependency management of Maven I was able to > avoid having to use the oscache devsrc for oscache and avoid using the > devlib jars. I only used Maven to build the Data Mapper/SQL Map. I wasn't > familiar enough with Abator's build process to wire in Maven for it. > > Benefits: > > * I thought it would be good to aid in reducing the complexity of our > current build/deploy. If we want to provide our jars to the Maven crowd we > would be tasking the deploying member with taking the final jar built from > ant and running deploy:deploy-file for it. I have to say that I looked > through our release process and I really wouldn't want to add yet another > step. Seems like maven can consolidate this for us. > * We can run ant from within Maven if we so desire to continue performing > tasks that maven doesn't provide for. > > Additional benefits, thoughts, or concerns? > > Thanks, > Brandon >
