On Nov 29, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
Hi Alan,
Yep, there's no doubt that we could have a jsecurity-web.jar. It'd be
very easy to do. Since JSecurity was designed from the ground up to
work in any environment, web or not, it would be pretty easy to
extract the web stuff into its own jar.
So it comes down to personal preference where you prefer to have the
web code mixed in with the same place and have the build system
extract the bits that are needed depending on the Ivy configuration.
Aside from Ivy configs being better than maven in expressing
transitive dependencies, the other main reason for staying with
Ivy+Ant was due to 'customizability'. Modifying Maven to do what you
want, e.g. via special plugins, is nasty, especially when Maven
upgrades cause your plugins to fail. Allan can speak more about this,
as it has particularly plagued him at work.
Apples and oranges. IIRC, Allan was struggling with an old pre-
existing build system.
I personally can't stand the suggested maven directory structure. If
you have more than one or two modules, the traversing of directory
trees in your IDE becomes quickly unbearable. I just don't like it.
The current structure we have in place with Ivy however is a lot more
flexible and we can change it any way we like.
Not sure that there is a need for that flexibility in our case.
At least that's my .02. And just for clarity's sake, and to quell
Joshua's concerns, we don't use the Ivy-generated pom.xml. We
manually edit it to ensure its correctness.
If we're just using it to publish artifacts to the Maven repo then I
suggest that we remove much of the POM's content that is not relevant
to that task.
Regards,
Alan
Cheers,
Les
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 3:28 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yep, I read that. All I could see was an explanation on Ivy
Configurations.
I'm always interested in what can be accomplished cleanly, if at
all, in
Ant/Ivy but not the Maven or visa versa.
In this project's case, I think that things can be handled by
splitting the
web code out into its own jar.
Of course, I could have missed something.
Regards,
Alan
On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Joshua Partogi wrote:
Alan,
Les already written it down on http://www.leshazlewood.com/?p=44
I must agree that the pom.xml that Ivy generated does not comply :-(
best regards,
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
s/compelling/interesting to me personally/
I don't want to start a flame war... ;)
Regards,
Alan
On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Near as I can tell this project went w/ Ant/Ivy because of Ivy's
configurations; I'm aware of other reasons but I do not find those
compelling.
I'm curious about what problems exactly Ivy configurations
solved that
Maven did not.
Regards,
Alan
--
Not by might nor by power, but by His Spirit.
Read my blog: http://joshuajava.wordpress.com/
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/jpartogi
