Everyone seems to be talking about monolithic jars vs modular jars as if they are mutually exclusive.
I don't see why we can't have both and make everyone happy. If someone really wants only one jar as well as mahout-common then the burden is on them to do a little more research and figure out deps. If they want everything they just use the all singing all dancing jar. To get this functionality it's just a simple <copy> task with an exclude, or include depending on how you look at it (there are also many ways to skin this cat). About dependencies for mahout: Simply stick them in a lib directory. Done, end of store. See Apache-SOLR. There is no magic here. ant dist (all) -> mahout.jar and dist-foo -> mahout-foo.jar To re-summarize Build: +0 Maven +1 Ant Structure: +0 Per project layout +1 Single Source Tree Build Out: +1 Modular +1 Single (Yes, I favor both). On 1/30/08, Dawid Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I share some folks' opinion. While Maven seems nicer in some aspects, I > like > build scripts that are predictable and consistent. Even if ANT can be a > pain, I > would go with it instead of Maven. > > My votes: > > Build system: > +0 Maven 2 > +1 Ant > > Project structure: > +0 Per-algorithm source tree > +1 Single source tree > > Release artifact(s): > +0 Per-algorithm jar > +1 Monolithic jar > > I don't think we will have that many classes to be concerned with JAR > size. The > dependencies will be much larger and splitting these (or making a clear > documentation about which algorithm requires which JARs) will be more > important. > > Dawid >
