James Strachan wrote:
> From: "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>Vincent Massol wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Look. I think we are talking about the same thing. Except that in Maven
>>>case there is no need for a build.xml file at all. However, it is
>>>certainly needed for more complex builds (which is the reason for our
>>>maven.xml). In addition, Jelly let's us access easily the XML POM.
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>
>>Exactly :-)
>>
>>We attain the same goals from different perspectives, with different
>>approaches.
>
>
> I'm not sure Maven and Centipede even have the same goals. Certainly they
> seem similar but maybe the different approaches actually highlight different
> goals.
As was said, the main goal is to make builds easier for the user, and we
surely share that :-)
>>Since James tried to explain why he thinks using Jelly up front is
>>better, I explained why we think it's not necessarily needed.
>
> I never tried to imply that Jelly was better than Ant. I just was trying to
> answer Glen's initial question which was...
>
>>>I'd be interested in learning more about what problems you believe Jelly
>>>solves that Ant was unable to.
>>
>
> For what Maven is trying to do we've so far found Jelly to be a cleaner
> solution.
Of course: "he thinks using Jelly up front" (implied: in Maven) " is
better".
>>I really don't /know/ what is the best, since we are both in new
>>territory, it's our best guess ;-)
>>
>>But it seems we are really gaining from each other, even if sometimes
>>we are not aware of it. :-)
>
>
> Agreed.
+1
And don't think that I won't use Jelly, I'm still waiting for the Cocoon
Generator :-) <hint hint nudge nudge>
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
