On Dec 30, 2008, at 5:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Dec 27, 2008, at 10:51 PM, Niklas Gustavsson wrote:
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]
> wrote:
I'm wondering if it would be possible to have multiple build
systems for the
same body of code. Each build system proponent would take
responsibility
for maintaining their build system. It would kinda like be Berlin
after
WWII.
Out of personal experience, I prefer Maven, simply because I find.it
proposes more consistent builds over multiple projects. And, there is
tons of experience at Apache when using Maven to fulfill all the
Apache requirements on releases (licenses, notices, license headers,
GPG).
Yeah, this has been my experience as well. Maven projects are
easier to grok. Ant projects are a free for all since every
developer creates a build system to suite their personal tastes.
I've mentioned it before but will repeat it again here so as to
avoid the earlier unproductive thread. The touchpoint of ASF
projects is the code not the release JARs and WARs. One of the
priorities is to make things easy to grasp and transparent for new
and potential community members not just keep the status quo of the
original developer group.
I will go farther and say that my observation of projects here at
apache is that the ones using maven generally are a __LOT__ more open
to comments, contributions, integration proposals, and outside
interest than the ones using ant. My experience with the ones using
ant is generally that they tend to have an attitude that they know
better than anyone else how their project might be used or might fit
into other contexts.
Partly as a result of these experiences and partly due to the
typically incomprehensible project organization of ant built projects
I have to be MUCH more interested in the subject area of an ant built
project before I will investigate it. For me JSecurity is just barely
edging over into "worth investigating despite the project organization
and build system".
I'm exaggerating a bit but not nearly as much as I wish I was. It's
also entirely possible that my experience is caused entirely by the
particular ant-built projects I've dealt with.
This situation is not all that surprising since maven makes the
dependencies on other projects very explicit and clear and provides a
uniform and standard way for other projects to deploy on your
project. Ant tries to hide the fact that all non-trivial projects
depend on other projects and that other projects might want to depend
on yours by simply not dealing with it at all. I don't have any
experience with ivy so don't have any idea how it might affect this.
thanks
david jencks
Regards,
Alan
