On 10/18/07, Paul Shemansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/17/07, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But if you want to create a maven build file ( or a Makefile, or > > eclipse/netbeans projects, etc :-) that builds tomcat - I personally > don't > > see a problem with that - as long as it doesn't require moving code > around > > and can play nicely with the current code layout and other build tools. > I > > think the 'official' way to build tomcat should remain ant ( at least > until > > any potential replacement has a large mileage ), but having other > alternate > > build tools can't hurt. > > I apologize if I made this discussion seem like an all-or-nothing > dictatorship. This effort could be a huge all-at-once change, or a > gradual migration towards Maven. The two can also co-exist well > together, accommodating both Maven and Ant users. I hereby encourage > all developers not only to vote +1 or -1, but also offer why they feel > that way. If you feel it should be a +1, but have some reservations > as to "how" it is to be done, by all means share that too. If you're > thinking "+1, but only if _____ .", please let everyone know instead > of voting -1.
Well, like it seems many other people I hate maven ( and not only because of technical issues, but also on principle - the structure and dev model it spreads is IMO quite bad ). But while I won't use maven - other people might, and any build tool should be ok to use with tomcat as long as it just builds - and doesn't try to impose a certain code or deployment structure. > I'm quite happy using mostly eclipse - I hardly ever use ant ( mostly to > > generate jars and move code around ), the auto-recompilation and fast > > run/debug/hot-replace in eclipse are saving me a lot of time, but if > > something faster emerges I'll try it. > > Costin > > I suppose many of us use eclipse, and any disparate build process in > many ways hinders that comfy, rapid IDE development we prefer to > enjoy. I agree that the automation the IDE provides is vital to > development, and have found many ways to keep Maven in line with that. > > Would you vote +1 for a slightly more refined co-existence with Maven > 2 rather than a blatant full-replacement? See above, +1 to add maven, NetBeans, Idea, Makefile, JMake or any other build technology. The only requirement is to do this without changes to the source tree ( I'm ok if you create a different set of jars - as long as the 'official' release and what we distributes to others is not changed and it's based on what we want, not on what the build tool may like ). Would you vote +1 for full-replacement provided it gives you > unhindered, Eclipse-friendly flexibility? Absolutely not. Costin --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
