Steve Brewin wrote, On 4/5/2006 3:34 PM:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Steve Brewin wrote, On 4/5/2006 1:55 PM:
Alan Cabrera wrote:
Cool. So what is your opinion of Maven 2 and XBean?
Two separate issues.
I don't see a lot of issues raised around the build procedure. What do you see
as the costs and benefits involved in making the change?
With Maven 2, you don't need to have all the jars in your subversion
repo. The structure and dependencies of the project are more clearly
stated in the Maven 2 project POM.
Ant is great. It's got tons of great building blocks and it allows
everyone to structure their project any way that they want. That power
is also what makes it awkward to new comers. Every project gets
structured differently and, usually, only those few build masters that
originally set things up fully grok the build gestalt.
Maven 2 adds a little more common structure to things and can be thought
of as a lingua franca of project descriptions.
The first steps we need to make in removing our core code from being dependent
on Avalon based container architectures is is Pojoification. Then the core code
can be bound together using any container architecture, XBeans being just one.
I'm all for Pojoification, but as we have seen in previous discussions on this
list, there is no agreement on the exact semantics - SDI via CDI.
You get both w/ XBean. Use what ever you want.
Yeah, I get that. Having an SVN repo that others can look at
and make
comments would be handy.
Pass. Someone with more infrastructure knowledge may know if this is possible.
It's doable w/ ACLs but some projects prefer not to do so. I can put
this somewhere else. I just need a repo.
Regards,
Alan
