Michal,

It seems we are in agreement in the end :-) I'm all for using Java as I
mentioned in my first email on this subject (and I do agree with all
your points below except point f)). My only comment was about
re-implementing the Zip/Jar/War tasks (and possibly the Manifest one
too).

Thanks
-Vincent

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michal Maczka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 18 June 2003 21:40
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: RE: Recent changes in war plugin
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vincent Massol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 8:46 PM
> > To: 'Maven Developers List'
> > Subject: RE: Recent changes in war plugin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Michal Maczka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: 18 June 2003 12:44
> > > To: 'Maven Developers List'
> > > Subject: RE: Recent changes in war plugin
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What's so magical in ant war task?
> > > >
> > > > It's written, fully supports the war model and has gone through
lots
> > of
> > > > testing.
> > > >
> > >
> > > OK  I agree. But if we all have all files in given folder and we
just
> > want
> > > to archive it why we should care? It's just fairly simple thing.
> > > Do we need realy war target for this? It's adds nothing
> >
> > If you keep using the Ant jar task and do not write a single line of
> > java, then I'm 0. BTW, why would you need to write some java code?
> >
> > >
> 
> Nope. No Java code.
> 
> > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Why web.xml should not be kept in src/webapp/WEB-INF?
> > > > > What's so wrong in it? Why Ant dislikes this?
> > > >
> > > > Nothing wrong. That works BTW. This is where I put my web.xml
> > file...
> > > >
> > >
> > > I know it works... but prints this annoying warning message.
> >
> > That's easy to fix by excluding it (same as what is done for the ear
> > plugin).
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see any benefits which we gain using this ant target.
> > > >
> > > > Are you going to say the same with the Ant Jar task? Or do you
plan
> > to
> > > > extend it in the same way the War task does it?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Preferably I would not use Ant at all as it is. Just simple Beans.
> > Bean
> > > can
> > > be easily used as in jelly, java code or wrapped in Ant Task. We
don't
> > > need
> > > "real Ant task" with their addition, but we do sometimes need
their
> > > functionality.  I mean I am for something conceptually close  to
Ant2
> > > tasks
> > > then Ant1.
> >
> > Oh ok, so you're also saying that the Ant Jar/Zip tasks do
nothing...
> > I'm definitely -10 to reimplement the Jar task from Ant.
> >
> 
> I not going to reemployment them :)
> Don't worry.
> 
> [...]
> 
> >
> > No. I would continue to be -1 for a reimplementation of the
Zip/Jar/War
> > tasks in java.
> >
> > You seem to be missing that for every line of code you write instead
of
> > reusing:
> > - you have to test it
> > - you have to document it
> > - you are upping the bar for any newcomer to participate to
development
> > (the more code the less easy it is usually)
> > - you must maintain it
> >   - fix bugs
> >   - add new features that you had forgotten to add initially
> >
> 
> No!
> 
> I am trying to say that development in Java is:
> 
> a)  simpler (tools, tools tools)
> b) faster (tools, tools, tools)
> c) simulates code reuse (much more than in jelly)
> d) the code is easier to test
> e) you can debug
> d) you know when any API changes breaks the code (compiler tells you)
> f) is simpler for newcomers (so bar is definitely not raised, as much
more
> people knows java then jelly)
> d) resulting code is faster
> 
> Surly jelly is nice for some things, but maintain the project of maven
> size
> developed in jelly is a nightmare..
> 
> I am definitely not going to change anything in Maven because of that.
> But
> I am sure that if more things were done in Java
> it will be better. Even/Because in Java we can use reuse code from
ANT.
> And when Maven will have more java code (libraries like Bob's "fetch"
) it
> will be possible to reuse output of maven in
> other worlds. Ant can will profit. Nobody can ever reuse our jelly
> scripts.
> 
> regards
> 
> Michal
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



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

Reply via email to