Hm. There is a tad too much assumption in that previous post. First let me introduce myself; 15 years ago I graduated with honors from a software engineering study. I've done everything from C, Cobol, lowlevel embedded systems and assembly (I worked on one of the first mobile GPS hardware), Pascal, Miranda, ObjectiveC to Java and DotNet. (I always steered clear of C++ ;-) In project ranging from local webshops to full ERP systems and software for banks and insurances. Using all the build systems and source control revision that came with them. I know my way around.
Secondly, let me repeat that Maven is a great concept and that I have no intention whatsoever to discredit it. All I did was bring forward some of my experiences with my attempt on migrating to Maven. The migration to Maven is not because I want to migrate one of my projects; I'm setting up the development toolchain for our company, using one of our more complex projects as the testcase. I've initially tested Maven 2 about half year ago, and I found it complex. The basic rule I always follow is that if I assume myself as being average, then there will be others that will find it complex as well. If the average user finds it complex, then it on average is complex. In my first attempt I really understood the basic goal of Maven; default directory structure, default build phases, almost nothing to configure if you stick to the standard. However, real life usage showed me that Maven may not be as easy to grasp for the casual user. I don't want them thinking about the build, it just has to work, also if they start a new project. That is why I decided to examine other approaches, not because I want Maven to do whatever I want, because I -as the average user- found it fairly complex. These other approaches had their drawbacks as well, and that is why I came full circle back to Maven, but diving deeper now; trying some real world projects. "Ok, so it may be hard to fully grasp, but if I can set it up so the others won't really have to think about it, it'll be ok. There are a lot of advantages to Maven." As you have pointed out; you don't need to sell Maven, I've come full circle. But the complexity remains my major hickup; even small projects quickly become a configuration complexity with execution environments, phases, goals... No. That must be encapsulated inside the plugins. Yes, software building can be complex, but it shouldn't be this quickly. I'm not even using parent pom's, just simple artifacts. My coders need to think: "I need A, I include A-plugin and it works". And that is what I mean with its the EJB2ness. (I still think it's a good metaphore.) EJB2 also exposes too much of its innards. I've read the sheets on Maven 3 and it looks promissing; I'm reading what I'm looking for. Extention points, plugin, mixin... Maybe I'm simply trying just a minute too soon. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/custom-maven-plugin-default-phase-tp27626122p27669723.html Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
