Les Hazlewood wrote:
Therein lies my #1 gripe about adopting Maven. The second you might want to
do something that is not the Maven Way, you end up backed in a corner.
I see Maven as the "SAP for projects" : you'd better adapt to it,
otherwise, it will cost you much more to adapt Maven to fit your
desires. Where SAP is good is that it has been successfully adapted to
ten of thousands of enterprises, so they can't be totally wrong. So is
Maven. A last point is that if I have a problem with Maven, I have
dozens of fellows around me to help me. Add that you don't change a
build system every single day ...
Enough for me to forget about my dislike for Maven.
I
can't, in good conscience, ever vote in favor of a build system that doesn't
offer flexibility should it be needed or desired. I would rather see a
build system that builds by convention but allows overrides where you want
it.
I vote for any build system which is stable, established in a couple of
hours, used, and documented.
I personally don't care what the casual builder of our framework wants to
use or how they want things laid-out - they don't live in the source code on
a regular basis.
We are talking about the project's developpers not the users. They are
using the jars, not the build.
I care about what the development team prefers. If
others on the dev team vote for a directory structure that matches the Maven
Way, then I will accept it. I however will not vote that way.
But, I just did some googling:
http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-the-standard-directory-layout.html
"Please try to conform to this structure as much as possible; however, if
you can't these settings can be overridden via the project descriptor."
So, it appears that they are 'overridable'...
Yeah, but this is not the Maven way ... Otherwise, you fell back in the
'Plugin writers' category, and trust me, this is not a funny place to be!
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
