I wouldn't particularly be in favour of Ant+Ivy for proton. I did that for the main Qpid java stuff because it allowed a long overdue clean up of our repo and didn't involve changing the entire build system (if it had, I woudn't have done it), but if I was starting afresh I'd be using Maven for that too.
Robbie On 23 July 2012 20:54, Weston M. Price <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 23, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > > I think its safe to say Maven is a lot more mature now than it was back > > then, and is much more widely used. The issues that existed then > certainly > > don't seem to bother the massive numbers of large projects using it > today. > > > > Given how popular it is with other developers as a build system and as a > > route for their projects to consume artifacts, I'd generally be in favour > > of making the switch if only to be nice citizens to prospective users of > > proton. > +1 > Notwithstanding my personal dislike of maven, it seems to have become the > de facto standard. Although, we could use Ivy+Ant like we do in the current > code base. This would be my personal preference but the maven thing has > truly become a 'if you can't beat them, join them' thing for me so I would > be fine either way. > > Weston > > > > > Robbie > > On 23 Jul 2012 20:00, "Rajith Attapattu" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I personally prefer the simple ant based system. > >> The last time Qpid used maven it was horrible :) .. it downloaded the > >> entire universe into my computer. > >> We also had trouble doing repeatable builds. > >> Now I don't know if it was due to the way Maven was used or if it was > >> an issue with Maven itself. > >> I've never had issues with ant before --- it always worked for me :) > >> With Maven it wasn't particularly a pleasant experience. > >> So I'm biased there and please don't blame me for that. > >> > >> Having said that, I'm not going to make a fuss, if the majority wants > >> Maven ! > >> > >> One more thing. Converting the build system to maven is fine, but who > >> ever does that should also take the responsibility of maintaining it > >> as well :) > >> To a certain extent that was also an issue with the previous attempt > >> at using maven. > >> > >> Rajith > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Oleksandr Rudyy <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I completely support Joseph's proposal to use maven as building system > >>> for j-poton module. > >>> > >>> Kind Regards, > >>> Alex > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> 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] > >> > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
