eriment has succeeded or not.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 2, 2003 10:18 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: [Vote] Choosing a build/doc gen tool(s) [was: Re: The
Forrest Option]
Steve Raeburn wrote:
> I'd like to add Mave
At 11:04 -0700 10/2/03, Steve Raeburn wrote:
Well Rob has already made a start on adding Maven. I did try building with
it, but hit a snag downloading the validator jar and I've not had a chance
to have another look since.
The snag is that commons-validator-1.1.0.jar is not on the default
(iBiblio
essage-
> From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: October 2, 2003 10:18 AM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Re: [Vote] Choosing a build/doc gen tool(s) [was: Re: The
> Forrest Option]
>
>
> Steve Raeburn wrote:
> > I'd like to add Maven now,
Steve Raeburn wrote:
> I'd like to add Maven now, learn from the experience on 1.x and then
> use that to optimize the project organization and build process for
> version 2.
If the people voting +1 are ready to roll up their collective sleeves
and give Maven a try, then that would be fine with me
ames Mitchell
> >Software Engineer / Struts Evangelist
> >http://www.struts-atlanta.org
> >678.910.8017
> >770.822.3359
> >AIM:jmitchtx
> >
> >
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Don Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
From: "Don Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: The Forrest Option
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
We can even add Forrest-based generation to
1, 2003 9:58 PM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: [Vote] Choosing a build/doc gen tool(s) [was: Re: The Forrest
> Option]
>
>
> Most of us have given (or at least hinted at) our opinions, so
> let's give a
> show of hands:
>
> Mavenization:
> [X] +1 - I am in fa
I believe the question is not between maven and forrest, but rather
between Anakia/xdoc and forrest. It is entirely possible to even use all
the report output from Maven and include it in a forrest build of the
website. Default Maven uses the xdoc plugin. All forrest would be doing
is replacing
Wednesday, October 01, 2003 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: The Forrest Option
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
>
> >
> > We can even add Forrest-based generation to our current Ant-based build
> > scripts :-). It's just an external tool, after all.
> >
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
>
> We can even add Forrest-based generation to our current Ant-based build
> scripts :-). It's just an external tool, after all.
>
Actually it is very easy to do, using a forrest entity which imports
forrest targets. The only setup needed is to
David Graham wrote:
--- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Graham wrote:
Rob mentioned something about Struts being setup for Maven already and
I
asked for clarification. If that's true then I see no point in
complicating things with another build tool. Also, it seem
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Ted Husted wrote:
> Ah, well, you see we don't have JARs in our CVS. That's one of the
> reasons people have trouble building Struts at first. They have to go
> off and snag all the JARs themselves. Though, it seems like ruper might
> help in that regard.
Doh! I blocked out t
--- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Graham wrote:
> > Rob mentioned something about Struts being setup for Maven already and
> I
> > asked for clarification. If that's true then I see no point in
> > complicating things with another build tool. Also, it seems that
> Maven in
> > so
Don Brown wrote:
Yes, this won't help our build at all. Until we get Maven running, there
are some options to bring some Maven features over to Ant. For example,
if we wanted to get rid of jars in our CVS, we could use something like
http://www.krysalis.org/ruper/ or
http://blogs.codehaus.org/peo
Robert Leland wrote:
> The whole Maven idea came because we felt the build
> process of ant struts-legacy was broken or needed some
> serious work. If Don wants to put energy into redoing our site's look
> and feel that then here is my +1. Just know we are still
> left with the original problem.
St
s Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 3:12 PM
Subject: Build improvements (was Re: The Forrest Option)
> Yes, this won't help our build at all. Until we get Maven running, there
> are some options to bring some Maven features over to Ant. For e
David Graham wrote:
--- Robert Leland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Don,
I have one request and that is to leave the existing maven files
in place since they do currently generate a web site with the reports.
I must be confused with the several projects I'm working on. So, Maven is
alread
Yes, this won't help our build at all. Until we get Maven running, there
are some options to bring some Maven features over to Ant. For example,
if we wanted to get rid of jars in our CVS, we could use something like
http://www.krysalis.org/ruper/ or
http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/kevin/archive
David Graham wrote:
Rob mentioned something about Struts being setup for Maven already and I
asked for clarification. If that's true then I see no point in
complicating things with another build tool. Also, it seems that Maven in
some ways is a superset of Forrest functionality. It handles the w
The whole Maven idea came because we felt the build
process of ant struts-legacy was broken or needed some
serious work. If Don wants to put energy into redoing our site's look
and feel that then here is my +1. Just know we are still
left with the original problem.
-Rob
---
--- Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, David Graham wrote:
>
> > Rob mentioned something about Struts being setup for Maven already and
> I
> > asked for clarification. If that's true then I see no point in
> > complicating things with another build tool. Also, it seems
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, David Graham wrote:
> Rob mentioned something about Struts being setup for Maven already and I
> asked for clarification. If that's true then I see no point in
> complicating things with another build tool. Also, it seems that Maven in
> some ways is a superset of Forrest fun
rrest. I have not had a chance to
> look into
> > it. If that is more simple than Maven then I am all for it. Lets not
> make
> > the build process this awful process. I think everyone would agree
> with
> > that.
>
> We're not talking about the build process
for it. Lets not make
the build process this awful process. I think everyone would agree with
that.
We're not talking about the build process as a whole. The Forrest Option
refers only to website maintenance and documentation.
Since Don's ready to sign-up for Forrest, we should start b
make
the build process this awful process. I think everyone would agree with
that.
Chris Gastin
- Original Message -
From: "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 8:51 AM
Don Brown wrote:
For example, currently, we have quite a few Struts extensions, example
applications, and related frameworks that I feel Struts could do a better
job of encouraging. Instead of requiring an extension developer to submit
a patch to bugzilla to change a description or add their proje
--- Robert Leland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don,
>
> I have one request and that is to leave the existing maven files
> in place since they do currently generate a web site with the reports.
I must be confused with the several projects I'm working on. So, Maven is
already setup in Struts
Don,
I have one request and that is to leave the existing maven files
in place since they do currently generate a web site with the reports.
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Don Brown wrote:
I know the discussion on whether to use Forrest or Maven to generate the
Struts website was a few weeks back,
Don Brown wrote:
I know the discussion on whether to use Forrest or Maven to generate the
Struts website was a few weeks back, but unfortunately, at the time, I was
too busy to participate. I'd like to lay out a case for Forrest, not to
insist Struts uses it, but rather to make sure the decision
David Graham wrote:
The Forrest features Don mentioned aren't significant to me and I'm
already familiar with Maven so I'm leaning towards Maven but I really
don't care as long as the build is as easy as "maven jar" or equivalent.
But please let's not try to maintain multiple build processes.
(it's sad the number of lists I lurk on)
Just thought I'd throw in a few points..
- Forrest is *purely* a documentation tool. It is comparable to Maven's
xdoc plugin, not Maven itself. Compared to the xdoc plugin, it is
bigger, slower, more powerful. Running Forrest feels like firing
--- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don Brown wrote:
> > Further, deciding between Forrest and Maven isn't an either/or
> situation.
> > There exists a Forrest plugin for Maven and it would be easy to
> integrate
> > Maven's reports into a Forrest site build.
>
> <.../>
>
> > If we did d
Don Brown wrote:
Further, deciding between Forrest and Maven isn't an either/or situation.
There exists a Forrest plugin for Maven and it would be easy to integrate
Maven's reports into a Forrest site build.
<.../>
If we did decide to go with Forrest, I'm willing to convert the old site
over and h
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Robert Leland wrote:
> I prefer Maven because it provides builds, testing, QA tools, and site
> generation in one tool.
> The repository of binaries makes building a distribution or maven
> enabled site as easy as typeing,
> 'maven' for new users.
> Changing the look/skin is s
Don Brown wrote:
I know the discussion on whether to use Forrest or Maven to generate the
Struts website was a few weeks back, but unfortunately, at the time, I was
too busy to participate. I'd like to lay out a case for Forrest, not to
insist Struts uses it, but rather to make sure the decision
I haven't used Forrest but Maven was pretty darn easy to get going. All I
had to do was download it and run "maven jar" or "maven site:generate".
It handled all of the dependencies by itself.
Assuming Forrest is as easy to use as Maven, I don't really care which we
use. I do prefer to maintai
Don Brown wrote:
If we did decide to go with Forrest, I'm willing to convert the old site
over and help handle any integration.
AFAIK, that is 90%+ of O.S.
.V
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional comma
I know the discussion on whether to use Forrest or Maven to generate the
Struts website was a few weeks back, but unfortunately, at the time, I was
too busy to participate. I'd like to lay out a case for Forrest, not to
insist Struts uses it, but rather to make sure the decision is made with
all t
38 matches
Mail list logo
