Re: Maven2 build

[Matthew Montgomery]

On Feb 12, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Angel Vera wrote:
I wanted to add my vote.

When I started working with Roller, it was very easy for me to look  
into the code and understand the build process, ant is very widely  
used among java projects and I would think that most of people who  
are involved with java actually understand ant easily, is that case  
for maven? it wasn't that hard for me to learn ant, in fact I never  
read a book about ant to learn about it, my only hope is that maven  
is much the same.

I you can tell I have absolutely no experience with maven, but ask  
yourself why that is? is it because maven isn't that popular yet, so  
why isn't maven popular?.

-1 for moving into Maven

Right. And to further the point I made a while ago. More "pick up and  
code" for people who already know Maven. :-)



----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: dev@roller.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 1:21:38 PM
Subject: Re: Maven2 build

I
would
have
to
agree
with
Dave
here,
Maven
vs.
Ant
has
nothing
to
do
with
wanting
to
get
people
to
be
involved
with
the
project.
I've
worked
on
Roller
quite
a
bit
and
never
felt
that
there
was
anything
particularly
difficult
about
the
build
process
using
purely
ant,
especially
not
something
that
would
magically
bring
in
new
developers
if
we
had
Maven.

Personally,
I
have
never
been
a
Maven
fan
and
have
never
seen
it
make
any
significant
improvement
in
a
build
environment
that
I
have
worked
with.
I
would
echo
Phillip's
opinion
that
Maven
is
"over-engineered"
and
has
never
really
proved
itself
to
me.

--
Allen


Dave
wrote:

On
Feb
12,
2008
11:41
AM,
David
Jencks
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

I
think
I'm
noticing
something
here.
There
are
several
people
who

are
not
(yet)
major
contributors
to
roller
asking
for
a
maven
build

since
they
find
the
current
ant
build
a
major
impediment
to

understanding
the
project
and
working
on
it,
and
there
are
several

people
who
are
thoroughly
familiar
with
the
current
ant
build
who
are

saying
they
are
familiar
with
the
current
ant
build
and
it
works.

Two
of
the
people
who
want
maven
have
offered
to
create
the
maven

build
(and
one
has
done
so
within
the
limits
of
not
moving
anything).


This
goes
along
with
my
general
observation
that
ant
is
good
if
you

want
to
keep
your
project
private
and
unrelated
to
other
software
or

new
contributors
and
maven
is
good
if
you
want
your
project
to
have

good
relations
with
other
projects,
both
as
a
consumer
of

dependencies
such
as
spec
jars
and
as
a
supplier
of
parts
such
as

roller
to
the
geronimo
roller
plugin.


One
of
the
biggest
reasons
I
haven't
found
the
time
to
propose
a

patch
for
the
new
security
stuff
(which
I
consider
seriously
flawed)

is
the
pain
of
trying
to
understand
how
parts
of
the
project
are

interrelated.
This
is
just
not
a
problem
with
a
reasonably
well
laid

out
maven
project.


Maybe
so
and
maybe
not,
but
if
you
think
the
reason
I
don't
see
value

in
Maven
is
because
I
want
to
keep
Roller
a
"private"
project
and
have

bad
relations
with
other
projects
then
you
are
wrong.
I
must
say,
I

find
that
insinuation
a
little
insulting.


Again,
I
ask:
what
*specific
problems*
that
we
are
now
facing
with

Roller
can
be
solved
by
moving
the
build
process
to
Maven?


-
Dave




--
Matthew Montgomery
.Sun Engineering
Sun Microsystems, Inc.