Am Montag, den 29.05.2006, 14:55 -0400 schrieb Noel J. Bergman: > I don't believe that we need Maven 2. But I am willing to see what effect > it would have on our build systems. Fortunately, Maven and Ant build > structures can exist simultaneously, so we can add Maven and see how we all > like the end result. I am not interested to have a Maven generated web-site > unless it is substantially what we have now, except improved. Maven > generated web-sites have generally and historically been hugely bloated. > Our entire site is 28MB, of which javadocs are 19MB.
Really i always feeled nice with maven site..
>
> > 3. We can try to remove libraries from our repository
>
> The Maven repository is not something that we should use. Two primary
> problems that Maven must resolve before I would be willing to use it.
> First, they must handle HTTP redirection, which e-mail from our mirroring
> team indicates they don't support. Second, and more importantly, they must
> handle authentication of signed artificts. Without the latter, I would
> sooner include the necessary jars, or require the user to download them
> directly from a vendor site. Automatic downloading and installation without
> verification is wrong, dangerous and irresponsible. I don't mean signed
> jars in the Java sense of jar signing. I mean signed as in the ASF release
> methodology.
Does this any tool which download jars autmaticly ? If the user want be
sure he should do it by his own (just my thinking)
>
> > 4. It will allow us to split James in subprojects: mailet-api,
> > mailet-impl, core, smtp, pop3, nntp, fetchmail, mailets,
> > spoolmanager having well-defined dependencies between modules.
>
> What prevents us from doing that with Ant? What prevents us from doing any
> of this with Ant?
>
> > 5. It simplify the integration in continuous integrations environments.
>
> GUMP works fine, no?
>
> > I know we can achieve some of the tasks even not using Maven2: in this
> > case I would like to know what you propose as an alternative.
>
> > Can we [change the directory structure] without switching to Maven2
>
> Why not? But also, why? What benefit do you see, and from what change? I
> am not saying no. Just want more details on your thoughts. Obviously, we
> already have some separation, e.g., src/java/.../{component} for major
> component areas. We could generate separate jars for each.
That is what we should do.. Many jars generation will it be easier for
people which only depend on a single compenent of us.
>
> Not sure if I see a benefit, although it might help with one of my goals,
> which is to allow, but not require, a configuration where the protocol
> services and the pipeline can all run as separate processes, allowing
> distributions and some other benefits (separate restarting and privilege
> separation).
>
> --- Noel
bye
Norman
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
