I would agree . Why spend time converting the core just to be on a
"more popular" framework. What would we do if Guice became more
popular, change again?
I think the bigger issue here is documentation on Maven's design and
design implementation. I find I have to search in a lot of places and
dig deep into the code to find out information when writing plugins.
This would be the same issue today if we had Spring. Now I do have to
admit I am just as guilty of this when I write my plugin which is much
smaller the core Maven. I think we all need to take the time to produce
and consolidate this information for users and for developers in order
to foster the Maven development community.
I do think that OSGi would provide a way to alleviate our dependency
issues (classpath hell). I know I am going through that now and it is
not easy to deal with.
Regards,
Garvin LeClaire
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Luke Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree that people would be more willing (and able) to contribute if the
core technologies were "Java5 + Spring + OSGi".
In the limited amount of time available to learn new things, is it
worthwhile for one to learn Plexus?
I must admit that I find this puzzling.
What people drives to participate in an open source project like
Maven, will, IMO, hardly be the inner architecture, but the value it
gives you for your daily work. Not that I find the Maven core
particularly clear, but that is hardly the result of using Plexus and
more owned to the cores complexity.
Apart from that, the most work is not so much in the core but in the
components. I surely hope that noone intends to rewrite or, even
worse, enforce a rewrite of shared components, plugins, and so on.
To sum it up: I don't see the value in that project. If there are
people who want to do it, fine with me, but I don't see what we could
win.
Jochen
