Ok, I'll close it. We can always discuss Maven builds (vs having a pom for bundling) at some point after the release.
Thanks! On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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: >>> >>> 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, >> >> Yeah. There are pros and (obviously) cons. It has to be rehashed later, I >> think. >>> >>> 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 believe >>> it should be a precondition to resolving a 0.9 issue. Are there still >>> any 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! > >
