I have no dog in this hunt.It seems that if providing a pom.xml makes it easier for users to include JSecurity in their projects, this is a good thing.
This is entirely separate from using maven to build the project. Craig On Nov 13, 2008, at 10:51 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
Les Hazlewood wrote:Yeah. There are pros and (obviously) cons. It has to be rehashed later, I think.I think this should be resolved - the Maven pom.xml has never been used to build JSecurity - it has only ever existed for others to use for dependency management (auto downloading) in the Maven repository. It will be quite an exercise to make the build maven compatible, and even then, I'm not sure that most members on the team want to go down that road, as we've debated internally (to some length) before. Of course, with the new team coming in to place, we can have that discussion again at some point,but I'd like to reserve that until after 0.9 final if possible.I don't think that having a maven build is a prerequisite at all.So, because Maven has never built the product before I don't believeit should be a precondition to resolving a 0.9 issue. Are there stillany outstanding objections to me closing the issue?I don't think so... Anyone ? -- -- cordialement, regards, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com directory.apache.org
Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
