I also am in favour of Maven integration. That would also correct the issue where the pom.xml file was not published along with the jar file to the maven repository for jempbox. Y.
Life is good! 2009/9/11 Andreas Lehmkühler <andr...@lehmi.de> > Hi, > > I know maven a little and ant a little bit more, but I guess I don't > know both good enough to decide which one is the better choice. If there > are any advantages using maven, let's do it. > > @Jukka > As you like to volunteer for a possible migration, have a look at > PDFBOX-499 and PDFBOX-500. They already contain patches from Niall for a > maven integration of fontbox and jempbox. > > Jukka Zitting schrieb: > > Hi, > > > > I know we've touched this subject every know and then, but I'd like to > > bring it up again: How would people feel about switching from Ant to > > Maven as the main PDFBox build tool? > > > > Such a change would be quite beneficial to anyone who is already > > familiar with the Maven conventions. Things like IDE and CI > > integration would require next to no manual tweaking, and we could > > easily leverage many of the best practices (source and javadoc jars, > > built-in PGP signing, UTF-8 source encoding, standard LICENSE and > > NOTICE file handling, etc.) encoded in the org.apache:apache parent > > POMs. We also wouldn't need to worry about keeping the pom.xml file up > > to date with changes in build.xml. > > > > WDYT? > > > > BR, > > > > Jukka Zitting > > BR > Andreas Lehmkühler > >
