On Jul 24, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote: > Sorry to jump in late on this thread. I'm totally for making proton as > easy to consume as possible, so I definitely support making maven > artifacts available, but I also had a very bad experience with maven > last time I was exposed to it. > > As I recall there were two major issues, one being non repeatable builds > due to a variety of reasons, some of which may have been addressed since > then. > > The other big issue we had was with integration of the maven built > software into other environments. I don't know if this has changed, but > maven didn't really have a concept of configuration. Rather than > adapting the software to build within the host environment, e.g. use > supplied libraries and/or leave out optional portions of the build, > maven takes the approach of adapting the host environment to fit the > software, i.e. download whatever is necessary to build, even if that set > of stuff is incompatible with the host environment. This actually makes > it very difficult to integrate maven built software into controlled > build environments, e.g. distros or release builds. > > Given that it's pretty straightforward to get ant to play well with > others (including maven) and a core goal of proton is to be super easy > to integrate, I'd be concerned that moving to a maven build might prove > to be a barrier to broader integration. I'd certainly like to understand > what it's impact will be e.g. on maintaining proton in distros or > getting it to build in embedded environments. > +1 My tentative endorsement for maven had more to do with being a good citizen than any inherent approval. > --Rafael
> > On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 16:47 -0400, Joseph Ottinger wrote: >> Well, what I'll do then is convert proton's build to maven and submit that >> as a patch attached to an issue, then I'll look into what it would take to >> get qpid-java's build to maven, too. If those diffs pass inspection, good. >> If not, we can fix them or ignore them as desired. >> >> On Monday, July 23, 2012, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 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] >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
