On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Tamás Cservenák <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can't stand to stay silent :)
That's cool - I definitely appreciate your feedback Tamás, even if I may not agree with it 100% :) > Traversing the source tree in IDE.... > IMO, just like the "ant build" is supported in your IDE, and it sets > your build class path accordingly, the same is possible for Maven > (with at least three different plugins or tools). Hence, the physical > layout of the sources on the disk will simply become a "wood" of > source class-paths :) So by that same argument, we can keep our src trees where they are now and have Maven play nice without much effort at all, right? ;) At least Ant allows us this flexibility... In any case, the source path acquisition is not my gripe here - any good IDE will pick that stuff up automatically. My complaint is in the overall project view, which I use exclusively for all of my projects. That is, I want to check out trunk, and from there, navigate to any src tree I need. The further down those src directories are, the more of a hassle it is overall. I just don't want to click 4 times to see the directory I care about - 1 or 2 at most. Granted the difference is small, but if you do it a few hundred times a day, especially across more than one 'module', it gets annoying _very_ quickly. All of this goes to personal preference of course. My IDE of choice, IntelliJ IDEA, handles modules beautifully and will 'flatten' them out at the root project level such that I see each module compartmentalized. But, I choose not to use that feature, because it hides a bit of the directory layout, which I feel most comfortable in - I like a cleanly organized and globally visible tree. So, although the modular 'view' is a feature of the IDE, I don't wan't to use it - it obfuscates the whole picture, which I personally like to have quite a bit. Forest through the trees - all that jazz ;) > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > > > > -- > Thanks, > ~t~ >
