Jeff Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Yes. Practice has shown me that it works extremely well. In fact, >> it's a time honored tradition, with the historical precedent dating >> back the beginnings of Unix. See /lib, /usr/lib, and /usr/local/lib >> on your favorite Unix or Linux box. Let's learn from history. > > I agree that a /usr/lib repository mechanism is much better than the > project-centric approach, IF it's done properly. Specifically, if > version management is taken very seriously. Otherwise you end up with a > directory full of jars from who-knows-where. > > If Maven has solved the versioning problem, then I'm keen to use it.
Maven does a reasonable job of solving the versioning problem through its dependency list. Currently, only one person (the Maven repository manager) has to futz with the JARs, once. Everyone else just uses Maven to pull the JARs and build. > Until then, is there any reason we can't accomodate both systems? Heck, > they're just build properties ;) Yes, let's continue this discussion and figure out what the common ground is. I'm willing to work on this for all the packages I use (which is quite a few, looking at Catalina's dependency tree alone ;). >> I am fussy. I'm so sick of building these projects where I have to >> set a million build variables instead of just one or two to produce a >> JAR (which I generally just need as a dependency for some other >> project). > > Absolutely. Every time I get a chance to work on a Commons project, I > first spend half an hour fiddling with dependencies to get it building. FWIW, I generally don't have to do this with lib.repo-style projects. In 85% of the cases, I simply pull from version control, cd in the new directory, and type `ant`, and grab the JAR. - Dan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
