Awesome. Am I reading that right that you could essentially embed scala code right in the POM?
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:50 PM, David Bernard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > Hi, > > @Tim > I don't have more info than the announce of 2.1.0-m1 or the following > article : > * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg89838.html > * http://blogs.sonatype.com/john/2008/09/19/1221844609400.html > (and I didn't find time to test the new version of maven) > > @Derek > Jesse Eichar contribute scripting to maven-scala-plugin > ( > http://scala-tools.org/mvnsites-snapshots/maven-scala-plugin/usage_script.html > ) > this is part of the version 2.8-SNAPSHOT, that should be released next > week. > > /davidB > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Derek Chen-Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > I agree on the Maven mojo programming. Anything to simplify custom build > > "scripts" would be great, so SBT sounds like an interesting idea. I > didn't > > mean to imply that it was a bad idea, just that you don't need all of the > > "-Ds" :) > > > > Derek > > > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Tim Perrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> > >> Hey Derek, > >> > >> I know about this command :-) > >> > >> My observation (of my friend at least) is that his reaction was "holy- > >> cow, i need to learn this build tool, a new language and a new > >> framework". The language and framework part you cant get away from > >> invariably but perhaps we can do something on the build tool front. > >> > >> Also what you generally see people doing with Rake is creating useful > >> little utilities without having to know heaps about how actually rake > >> works under the hood. Right now, IMO, creating maven mojo's is quite > >> difficult and you wouldnt see that same thing happening (a lot of > >> people are also very against "programming in XML" which maven can > >> sometimes feel like) > >> > >> Like I said, im not really pro-SBT or anything, I just wanted to float > >> the idea. Maven is doing a great job for us right now I agree. > >> > >> @davidB: Is there an ETA for maven 2.1 and 3.0 and/or a roadmap of new > >> features? > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> Tim > >> > >> > >> On Oct 5, 11:33 pm, "Derek Chen-Becker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > There's no *requirement* to use all of the "-D" stuff. If you just do > >> > > >> > mvn -U archetype:generate > >> > > >> > you actually get a nice list of archetypes, two of which are: > >> > > >> > 31: internal -> lift-archetype-blank (A blank/empty liftweb project) > >> > 32: internal -> lift-archetype-basic (The basic (liftweb) project) > >> > > >> > If you just pick the number it prompts you for the necessary info. > >> > > >> > Derek > >> > > >> > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Tim Perrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > god no, I dont want to replace maven :-) > >> > > >> > > There is talk of SBT having rake type functionality in the not too > >> > > distant future, so that was more what I was thinking. I appreciate > >> > > that maven can do all that stuff but from a beginer perspective its > >> > > pretty difficult for them to learn. > >> > > >> > > I recently persuaded my best friend to take up lift, and one of the > >> > > things he just couldnt understand was all the -D stuff he needed to > do > >> > > when getting started. So my intention here was more thinking that > >> > > perhaps its something we could leverage to simply our project > creation > >> > > needs etc > >> > > >> > > Like I said, just floating the idea :-) > >> > > >> > > Cheers > >> > > >> > > Tim > >> > > >> > > On Oct 5, 8:22 pm, "Jorge Ortiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > > I don't see a downside to providing an alternative build system to > >> > > > people > >> > > > who are very Maven-averse.... (as long as I don't have to maintain > >> > > > it!, > >> > > heh) > >> > > >> > > > But yeah, replacing Maven at this point seems unwise, unless there > >> > > > are > >> > > very > >> > > > compelling reasons. > >> > > >> > > > --j > >> > > >> > > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:15 PM, David Pollak < > >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Tim Perrett > >> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > >> Guys, > >> > > >> > > > >> Check this out: > >> > > >> > > > >>http://code.google.com/p/simple-build-tool/ > >> > > >> > > > >> It appeared a couple of days ago - im wondering if its > something > >> > > > >> we > >> > > > >> could customize to make starting lift projects easier? Its all > >> > > > >> written > >> > > > >> in scala so should be easily extendable. > >> > > >> > > > > I am very reluctant to introduce an additional build system to > >> > > > > Lift. > >> > > If > >> > > > > this tool is built on top of the Maven infrastructure but uses > >> > > > > Scala > >> > > files > >> > > > > to define build rules rather than using XML, I'm interested in > >> > > > > learning > >> > > > > more. If it's yet another build tool... well... > >> > > >> > > > >> I need to take a better look, but thought id float the idea > >> > > >> > > > >> Cheers > >> > > >> > > > >> Tim > >> > > >> > > > > -- > >> > > > > Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net > >> > > > > Collaborative Task Managementhttp://much4.us > >> > > > > Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp > >> > > > > Git some:http://github.com/dpp > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
