> -----Original Message----- > From: Vincent Massol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 8:46 PM > To: 'Maven Developers List' > Subject: RE: Recent changes in war plugin > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michal Maczka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 18 June 2003 12:44 > > To: 'Maven Developers List' > > Subject: RE: Recent changes in war plugin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's so magical in ant war task? > > > > > > It's written, fully supports the war model and has gone through lots > of > > > testing. > > > > > > > OK I agree. But if we all have all files in given folder and we just > want > > to archive it why we should care? It's just fairly simple thing. > > Do we need realy war target for this? It's adds nothing > > If you keep using the Ant jar task and do not write a single line of > java, then I'm 0. BTW, why would you need to write some java code? > > >
Nope. No Java code. > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > Why web.xml should not be kept in src/webapp/WEB-INF? > > > > What's so wrong in it? Why Ant dislikes this? > > > > > > Nothing wrong. That works BTW. This is where I put my web.xml > file... > > > > > > > I know it works... but prints this annoying warning message. > > That's easy to fix by excluding it (same as what is done for the ear > plugin). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see any benefits which we gain using this ant target. > > > > > > Are you going to say the same with the Ant Jar task? Or do you plan > to > > > extend it in the same way the War task does it? > > > > > > > > > > Preferably I would not use Ant at all as it is. Just simple Beans. > Bean > > can > > be easily used as in jelly, java code or wrapped in Ant Task. We don't > > need > > "real Ant task" with their addition, but we do sometimes need their > > functionality. I mean I am for something conceptually close to Ant2 > > tasks > > then Ant1. > > Oh ok, so you're also saying that the Ant Jar/Zip tasks do nothing... > I'm definitely -10 to reimplement the Jar task from Ant. > I not going to reemployment them :) Don't worry. [...] > > No. I would continue to be -1 for a reimplementation of the Zip/Jar/War > tasks in java. > > You seem to be missing that for every line of code you write instead of > reusing: > - you have to test it > - you have to document it > - you are upping the bar for any newcomer to participate to development > (the more code the less easy it is usually) > - you must maintain it > - fix bugs > - add new features that you had forgotten to add initially > No! I am trying to say that development in Java is: a) simpler (tools, tools tools) b) faster (tools, tools, tools) c) simulates code reuse (much more than in jelly) d) the code is easier to test e) you can debug d) you know when any API changes breaks the code (compiler tells you) f) is simpler for newcomers (so bar is definitely not raised, as much more people knows java then jelly) d) resulting code is faster Surly jelly is nice for some things, but maintain the project of maven size developed in jelly is a nightmare.. I am definitely not going to change anything in Maven because of that. But I am sure that if more things were done in Java it will be better. Even/Because in Java we can use reuse code from ANT. And when Maven will have more java code (libraries like Bob's "fetch" ) it will be possible to reuse output of maven in other worlds. Ant can will profit. Nobody can ever reuse our jelly scripts. regards Michal --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
