On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 03:13:49PM +0200, Thomas Van de Velde wrote: > Hi Vincent, > > Thanks for your view on this. Just for the record, as you already know, I am > a big fan of Maven and I will continue to use and promote Maven whether or > not it uses Spring. ;-) I just want to dig a bit deeper in this discussion > as it's something that's been on my mind for a while and I am not sure that > it's been fully clarified yet. I am sure some other users may be asking the > same question. > > (I've added a couple of comments below) > > On 8/5/05, Vincent Massol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Thomas Van de Velde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: vendredi 5 août 2005 11:14 > > > To: Maven Developers List > > > Subject: Re: [m2] getting involved? > > > > > > > > > > > BTW - I like plexus. Haven't noticed the project before. I had used > > > > avalon and had a look at pico+nano before. Plexus seems to be > > powerfull > > > > like avalon containers but less invasive (like the spring-framework). > > > > Maybe I'll use that in my project. Would you again decide for plexus > > if > > > > you'd choose now? > > > > > > > > > In what way would Spring be more invasive than Plexus? My issue with the > > > Plexus container is that it is completely unknown to most developers, > > that > > > there are no books and hardly any documentation on the site. I assume > > > there > > > must be good reasons for starting yet another IoC container (Can > > somebody > > > elaborate on those reasons?) > > > > There are 2 viewpoints you need to consider: > > > > 1/ First viewpoint: As a Maven2 user or as a Maven2 plugin writer > > > > As a Maven user/plugin writer you don't have to care as it's transparent > > for > > you, even if you're writing plugins. So it's a non-issue. > > > This makes sense to me. The philosophy of IoC and DI is to provide services > around POJO's (let me correct; MOJO's ;-), it should be pretty transparent > for the end user. Just wondering here if it would be usefull for users to > profit from the tool support that comes with Spring (beandoc, Spring-IDE, > ... and probably other stuff to come). Also, I think the out-of-box support > for JMX would make sense for remote configuration of a Maven build server. > You could also have a plugin that wants to profit from a persistence > template to e.g. write results in a database, or Web Services to call a > build target remotely.
As both a Maven and a Plexus developer I can say that adding JMX support for Continuum[1] (the Maven CI server) will be trivial. There is already a SOAP and a XMLRPC interface. > > 2/ Second viewpoint: As a Maven core developer. > > > > In that case, you're the one developing the solution and it's your call to > > choose whatever technology you wish. The current Maven developers are > > aware > > of the other IOC containers but for now they have preferred to use their > > own. > > Here we have a misunderstanding. My question is not meant as critisism. It's > mearly a reflection that I am making. I think it's a fair question to ask. > Since this hasn't been fully responded to on TSS, I ask again. > > I do agree with you that one drawback is its support. That said it does > > also bring lots of advantages to them like the ability to quickly make > > changes to it to support Maven2 use cases. I believe those advantages are > > currently greater that the disadvantages. > > > Fully agree. You, as a Maven developer, own all of the code so you can > easily customize. So would Plexus be more a build-oriented IoC container? No, Plexus is a truly generic container. It started out as a implementation of the Avalon component API (which is still supports). Plexus is used in several other applications (written by both us and others), so it's not a build-oriented container, but it is true that we have a lot of build-oriented tools and components :) It is also possible for Plexus to add support for other component lifecycles so if you really want to use your Spring beans in Plexus it won't be a mountain of work. Let me know if you ever want to try. > Conclusion: 99.9999% of all persons around Maven 2 are users and they don't > > need to care as it's transparent for them. > > > That's why I posted the question on the developers list ;-) > > -Vincent > > > > PS: This represents only my analysis of the situation. I'm not speaking > > for > > the m2 team although I believe they would agree with this :-) > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Would this be a correct conclusion? > > Plugin developers and M2 users, are not really exposed to Plexus. You can > easily write your plugins without having to learn about another IoC > container. That's definitely a pretty good conclusion, but I have to add that there might be cases where you might have to write Plexus components but we hope to keep those cases to a minumum and that we can collect as much commonly used code in shared components. [1]: http://maven.apache.org/continuum -- Trygve
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
