I have been converting code at work to maven and am finding that it is a very gratifying experience (subject to the usual "go along with the conventions" advice).
I would re-examine cases where "you can't do it" with maven with a very jaundiced eye. Are these really necessary? Are they really that hard? Code generation isn't hard, interesting test cases aren't hard. Is the difficulty actually just that it is hard to redo exactly what ant does? On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Feb 2, 2009, at 6:35 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > >> >> (So on build.xml files -- we are retaining them in some situations to >>> script things that Maven can't, and then call out to them from Maven? >>> for instance everything that is left in taste-build.xml, and it's not >>> much, can't be translated AFAIK. I don't want to lose it though.) >>> >> >> I will likely create an area for holding the maven specific >> customizations. But, yeah, in general, I would like to remove anything that >> is not needed. The key for me is that the end user building Mahout should >> have as simple a process as possible. >> > > > > More update here: Moving to Maven likely means removing most of the lib > files, as I see no reason to keep them around, other than the ones that > don't currently publish to Maven repo. This will definitely mean the Ant > scripts will no longer work, although it is easy enough to have Maven > generate a "lib" directory, so I don't think it is that big of a deal. I > don't want to be in the mode of maintaining two files, so as soon as we are > sure Maven is doing what we need, then we should remove them and keep a > small build file under /maven that contains any Ant plugin code. > > -Grant > -- Ted Dunning, CTO DeepDyve 4600 Bohannon Drive, Suite 220 Menlo Park, CA 94025 www.deepdyve.com 650-324-0110, ext. 738 858-414-0013 (m)
