Personally I don't mind that much (Ant vs. Maven) but I think that learning Lucene or Hadoop would have been easier if the build process was simple. So my point is: the more the project is complex the less likely it can be understood by developers willing to conribute (and the less likely it can be managed by maven - but this is a minor issue).
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Sean Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know Maven can do a fair bit more, and I do like the dependency > management aspect. In my own project I tried to maintain a pom.xml > file. The thing that stopped me from using it 100% is that the Maven > repo never quite has every dependency I need, so I'd maintain my own > too. But that wasn't a big deal. Also Ant is obviously a full build > script language whereas that is not Maven's intent, and at times one > needs that power. (see my 'build-server' targets for example -- don't > think this can be done with Maven). > > Everyone basically has Ant installed. Nobody really has Maven > installed already. That does give me pause. At least we are clearly > going to need to export Ant build files as well. Then we're still > using both, even if not duplicating much info. > > I'm open to it, still, but am still neutral on it. > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > The other main reason always has been "if it ain't broke, why fix it?", > at > > least in the case of Lucene. Lucene has been on Ant for a long time. It > > works. It's easy to use. Why change it? > > > > On Aug 5, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Lukáš Vlček wrote: > > > >> I was always asking myself what is so special about projects like > Lucene, > >> Hadoop (and possibly Mahout?) that maven can not be used as a project > >> management tool for them. I haven't heard an answer until these days > (... > >> "these projects are complex" is not an answer for me). > >> > >> Lukas > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:05 AM, pi song <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> That depends. If you want to do something very different from the > default > >>> model maven provides, it could be very painful sometimes. Maven is more > >>> like > >>> a coffee machine that you push a button and it just works. You can't > >>> configure much. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Ted Dunning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I have had the chance to use a maven centric build just lately from > the > >>>> IntelliJ point of view and found it painless to keep the pom as the > >>> > >>> master > >>>> > >>>> structure. IntelliJ can even sync back to the pom. > >>>> > >>>> I don't think that using ant from maven would be as useful as > switching > >>>> over > >>>> entirely to maven. > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Karl Wettin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I've managed to keep the POMs in sync locally at least up until a > month > >>>>> ago. Hopefully it's not too much of a hassle to update them. It was > >>>> > >>>> mostly > >>>>> > >>>>> trouble with nested deps that needed to be excluded. Also, > >>>> > >>>> core/src/examples > >>>>> > >>>>> needs to be moved to a new maven module in order to work and that > will > >>>>> require touching the ant build. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sorry for my recent inactivity and short communication the last > weeks! > >>>> > >>>> Been > >>>>> > >>>>> busy catching the sun, changing country and moving to a new > apartment. > >>>> > >>>> Have > >>>>> > >>>>> a whole bunch of halfbaked patches and comments here. Please allow a > >>> > >>> few > >>>>> > >>>>> days for me to sync with trunk and catch up with discussions on the > >>> > >>> fora. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> karl > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 5 aug 2008 kl. 04.06 skrev Sean Owen: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> That's nice -- how about targets that need more customized scripting? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I suppose we can keep those separate, and connect them to the > >>>>>> auto-generated build file. At least then build logic is not > >>>>>> duplicated. Sounds good? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:56 PM, pi song <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> You can generate ant build file/intelliJ project file/Eclipse > project > >>>>>>> file > >>>>>>> from Maven poms. One way is to too keep maven as your master so you > >>>> > >>>> don't > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> have to maintain both. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Sean Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I don't know, I have not found a great solution for this. I don't > >>> > >>> use > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Maven myself but am not against learning how to use it > effectively. > >>>>>>>> Part of that is sorting out how to keep it in sync with Ant build > >>>>>>>> scripts. We could delegate all building to Ant. Perhaps that's the > >>>>>>>> easiest way. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Anyone know enough about Maven to understand best practices? I > >>> > >>> assume > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> some does or else we wouldn't be bothering with it. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Grant Ingersoll < > >>> > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So, what's are plan for the Maven poms? How do we intend to keep > >>>> > >>>> them > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>> sync such that they are actually useful for those who want to use > >>>> > >>>> Maven > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> (not > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> me, but others...)? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -Grant > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> ted > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> http://blog.lukas-vlcek.com/ > > > > -------------------------- > > Grant Ingersoll > > http://www.lucidimagination.com > > > > Lucene Helpful Hints: > > http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/BasicsOfPerformance > > http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/LuceneFAQ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- http://blog.lukas-vlcek.com/
