Eric Redmond wrote: > > Any more reasons? Care to expand these ideas? >
Hi Eric, for corporate users, I believe there are some additional issues to the ones already named. Especially in large companies, it is often unacceptable to let users download artefacts directly from an Internet repository, even not through a proxy. Companies need to have full control over all artifacts used in their build processes, that means that only artefacts that have been explicitly released by someone should be used. So when you start using Maven, you want to immediately set up an internal repository which, I believe, is still a too complicated task. This is especially true for setting up an internal plugin repository. We did not find a comfortable way to initially fill an internal plugin repository. You should be able to say "fill my plugin repository with all required JARs for the plugins x, y and z". Our workaround was to set up a Maven reference installation zip, that already has all required plugin JARs in its local repository, so that users who unzip that archive have everything they need. Another point is, plugin JARs and production JARs should be separated. This is already possible for remote repositories, but it should be possible for the local repository as well. Tool JARs like xerces etc. are used both by plugins and by projects. But just because some plugin needs a JAR file, corporate users do not want to make that JAR available for builds. Corporate users just don't want to get tools mixed up with production software. Anyway, Maven is a great piece of software, full of great ideas. But some things still need to be improved before Maven has chances to achieve a wide acceptance. Arne -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-POLL--Why-switch-to-Maven--tf2185174.html#a6078097 Sent from the Maven - Users forum at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
