I agree the installation (and running) is painful, I've been thinking of a Webstart-based jelly-launcher which would help greatly, I think but had no time doing it.

In the meantime, I think a usable approach is to use directly maven to run jelly: for each jelly file, you have a project.xml (probably pretty dumb, but stating dependencies!), a maven.xml doing all you want... and probably some related files...

As of the non-up-to-date of the maven repository, I think it's simple enough to use maven to build the tag-libs you want (source from repository) and build so far as the plug-in is installed in your repository.

Might I recommend, however, that a distribution of jelly is made somewhere that contains most of the tag-libs ? At least those having dependencies that can be honoured by ibiblio ?

Certainly, the jelly development, however, would enjoy some responsible for the taglibs or a fair amount of them. I am not the influencer or decider but it really looks like it's needed.

Paul


Ken McCloskey wrote:
I'm quite eager to use Jelly, but I find the installation to be difficult and the documentation to be thin and unhelpful. One of the reasons I believe Ant has been so successful is that you can download it, install it, and use it in a matter of minutes. No lost time, no frustration.

Many of the dependencies required to build Jelly are not on ibiblio, for example.

Before I invest any more time into it, I'd like to know whether there is still a serious ongoing development effort in Jelly.

Ken




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to