On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]> wrote:
I've made my point, and you're beating around the bush. Maven causes some people pain. I want to avoid that same pain if possible. I hope that's clear enough. >> The 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' mentality is not appealing to me >> - I'm naturally drawn to doing things more efficiently in a cleaner >> way if possible. At the very least, I want to investigate and try out >> these possibilities, which is why I emailed this list hoping to >> experience the same sort of desire. I think Gradle offers a good >> approach, and I was hoping others would be willing to try, that's all. >> There's nothing saying we can't revert back to Ant XML if we didn't >> like the new approach. >> >> I'm of course willing to try Maven the same way and see what we like >> best - this isn't a "define it in stone" issue... > > I'm seeing the same arguments here as we had when you we're trying to cook > up a custom logger wrapper. Lots of rhetoric and and a plea that if we > don't like it we can revert it back to the other way that you want. Sure, same argument, and it is a good one - the ability to change if something doesn't work out is a good thing. Trying new things out to improve a project is a good thing. > All of this, seemingly driven by contracts that you are working on. I just suggested it because it was fun for me and I thought it'd be fun for others on this project. If we don't use it, fine, I don't care. You're the one who brought Maven in to all of this. > But in maven for this project there is no need for "scripting". The POMs > are crazy simple. You continuously bring the specter of complexity and when > I ask where it is your arguments trail off along rhetorical lines. Crazy simple? What about when you want to exclude transitive dependencies? You have to use a ton of exclude statements. This is verbose, ugly and not crazy simple to me. I'd like to stop talking about Maven now, as it has no bearing on my Gradle suggestion. If you want to try to incorporate Maven into the build, please start a separate thread where we can debate and vote on it there. >> I don't like to traverse directory trees to see this stuff. I don't >> like using the 'package' view - just my preference. > > Traverse directories? You sound like Rocky, in your case Sisyphus, on front > steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Really, I don't understand how > this trivial point is wagging the dog. Yep, that's the way I like to develop. Sorry if it doesn't match your mental model. I have 1 vote and I'll use it to support my mental model. > You, you, you, you. You want to have things organized the way you like it. > You want the project built the way you want it with the scripts that you > build. All of this with a disregard of anyone else new that has to come > along and grok how you want to work. And here is where I have an enormous > amount of experience. If I had a nickel for every cute way that a project > thought the world should be building things I would be able to pull this > country out of its credit crisis. And your constant harping on why Maven shouldn't be used, when others have said that we prefer not to go down that road, isn't all about you, you you? How I want a build environment to function has no bearing on how it will actually be. I realize this. It will depend on votes at the end of the day. I have 1 vote, so do you - use it however you wish. This WHOLE thread was just a friendly suggestion: "Hey, this thing is really cool, and I enjoyed using it - you guys wanna try it out?" You somehow have derailed this into a "Why aren't we using maven, blah, blah, blah" discussion. Again. The build uses Ant+Ivy. Anything else will probably require votes to change it. I'm willing to go down that road if necessary, but I was _hoping_, in the spirit of discussion and obtaining consensus that we could come to some amicable agreement. I guess not :( > At the ASF the touch point to the community is not the final JAR or WAR. > It's the code. Standardizing the organization of the project has > tremendous benefits such as ease of comprehension and visibility; there's no > value added in having people grok how Les Hazelwood likes to develop with > his irrational distain for directories. Its not just me. I know Jeremy and Allan like to develop in similar ways, but I suspect due to the holidays, they haven't had time to chime in. I'll let them speak up if they want. > I grow weary of trying to have discussions when all your "logical" arguments > all dwindle down to personal preferences. I've said a number of times that a lot of this is based on the way *I* like to develop - I haven't tried to hide it. This does influence how I will vote.
