On Oct 26, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Wayne Fay wrote:
>
> I don't understand the opposition to the format either. Most config
> files I deal with these days are in XML, and yet I haven't seen anyone
> ranting like this on the Weblogic forums complaining about config.xml,
> nor people complaining about
It uploads the site documentation using the site:deploy target, the same as any
Maven site deploy. If you have generated source listings, those will be
uploaded.
Yes, it is separate from source commits. That's standard.
Apparently the Maven developers rather wish that site generation hadn't bee
> I get the sense that you're bitterly opposed to XML, and by extension,
> anything else that uses XML, and while maven uses XML, you'll be opposed to
> maven. This is not a problem maven can fix for you.
This seems to be the root of his problem with Maven, and its not
something that we're going t
On 26/10/2010 2:56 PM, Kenneth McDonald wrote:
If a build can be described as a small number of facts, XML is an
unobjectional representation for those facts. If a POM fits on a page,
verbosity of XML is just not an issue.
Yeah, but a build often does not fit on a page, and I'm building some pr
On 26 Oct 2010, at 8:56 PM, Kenneth McDonald wrote:
Yeah, but a build often does not fit on a page, and I'm building
some pretty simple stuff!
To argue for the flexibity of Maven is (AFAIK) defensible. It's
power (from what little knowledge I have), likewise.
But, I'm sorry to say, the v
Kathyrn
I greatly appreciate the feedback. I've looked at using your system but
(correct me if I'm wrong), it doesn't maintain simulteneity of source and docs.
In other words, I have to upload the docs seperately from the source?
This is important to me. I regard a release as a juxtaposition of
> I've looked at pages and pages of POM files, trying to learn things. And my
> conclusion is that Maven was _fundamentally flawed_ in choosing XML as its
> base.
XML isn't evil. XML is a compromise between human-readable and
computer-readable data. It's neither the best nor the worst format. If
Perhaps you'd be interested in Polyglot Maven? http://polyglot.sonatype.org/
--b
__
Brian M. Carr
Identity and Access Management
ITS Applications
University of Texas at Austin
V: 512-232-6419
F: 512-471-5746
brianmc...@austin.utexas.edu
On Oct 26, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Ke
> If a build can be described as a small number of facts, XML is an
> unobjectional representation for those facts. If a POM fits on a page,
> verbosity of XML is just not an issue.
Yeah, but a build often does not fit on a page, and I'm building some pretty
simple stuff!
To argue for the flexi
On 25/10/2010 1:46 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
I think that this is an oversimplification. Start setting up a
release, or the maven-eclipse-plugin, or a non-trivial web
application, and you will find that your POM gets bigger and bigger
and harder and harder to manage and understand. Cases that I
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
> Have a look, some time, at the POM structure at cxf.apache.org. The
> shared parent is over 1,500 lines. A notable fraction of that is
> dependency exclusions, which in some cases are repeated, over and over
> and over, because all
>> I think that this is an oversimplification. Start setting up a
>> release, or the maven-eclipse-plugin, or a non-trivial web
>> application, and you will find that your POM gets bigger and bigger
>> and harder and harder to manage and understand. Cases that I'm
>> familiar with include trying to
I have a plugin (org.kathrynhuxtable.maven.wagon.wagon-gitsite) that uploads
your site documentation to github. It hasn't been verified to work with Maven 3
yet. The docs are at http://khuxtable.github.com/wagon-gitsite/, if you're
interested.
-K
On Oct 23, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Kenneth McDonald w
Comments interspersed below.
Ron
On 25/10/2010 8:26 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
I've tried to come up with a 'moderate' reprocessing of this dispute
before, and for some reason I'm going to try again.
The fundamental idea of Maven is that a build can be described with a
small number of facts. T
Thus what you are waiting for are :
- Maven polyglot which will allow to write the pom in various formats
(simplified xml, groovy, whatever) : http://polyglot.sonatype.org/
- Mixins which will allow to inject part of poms and thus ease how we can reuse
them : http://www.sonatype.com/people/2008/1
The point of XML is not that it is a language in the way natural or
programming languages are.
The point is it provides a standard machine AND human readable way of
representing structured data. Yes, it's not terribly fun or
straightforward to edit XML in a text editor. That's why XML aware
e
VERY well said Ben. You get my vote here.
> -Original Message-
> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargul...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 8:27 AM
> To: Maven Users List
> Subject: Re: [Repetitive]: Maven does not live up to its promises
>
> I'
I've tried to come up with a 'moderate' reprocessing of this dispute
before, and for some reason I'm going to try again.
The fundamental idea of Maven is that a build can be described with a
small number of facts. This is possible if the right conventions are
analyzed, designed, and implemented in
: [Repetitive]: Maven does not live up to its promises
Kenneth do you mind if I use the body of this rant in a blog entry? I will
leave it verbatim and won't quote anything out of context.
There are many people who misunderstand Maven at a fundamental level, but in
sum total not many
uitful.
-brian
From: ext Jason van Zyl [ja...@maven.org]
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 11:21 AM
To: Maven Users List
Subject: Re: [Repetitive]: Maven does not live up to its promises
On Oct 24, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Justin Edelson wrote:
> Jason-
> I'm sure the
Nope, no patents/fascination with Prolog. It's just that Maven declares itself
to be "declarative" rather than "procedural", and if those terms mean what they
usually mean, I can't think why it would have gone to the trouble of spinning
an entirely new system, only to ignore, what, 30 years'?, o
On Oct 23, 2010, at 7:10 PM, Néstor Boscán wrote:
>
> XML is one of the most widespread and flexible languages out there, accept
> it, move on.
XML is not a language, it is merely a way of specifying structured data. To
the extent that your structured data does or does not have control struc
Fine by me. I'm still looking for "maven enlightenment", and if I can
contribute to this (even in a negative way), that's great.
Ken
On Oct 24, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Kenneth do you mind if I use the body of this rant in a blog entry? I will
> leave it verbatim and won't quo
On Oct 24, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Justin Edelson wrote:
> Jason-
> I'm sure there's a lot here to respond to, but if I could make one
> suggestion, it would be to clarify what you/we mean when we say that Maven is
> 'declarative'. This seems, at least for Mr. McDonald, to be the source of
> some c
Jason-
I'm sure there's a lot here to respond to, but if I could make one suggestion,
it would be to clarify what you/we mean when we say that Maven is
'declarative'. This seems, at least for Mr. McDonald, to be the source of some
confusion.
Just my 2 cents...
Justin
On Oct 24, 2010, at 9:03
Hi there,
in the first round of the rant I already tried to find an answer to why
you where using maven in the first place.
Personally, I had my fights with maven; especially wrinting my own
plugins; but with the ecosystem of build
and quality management tools surrounding it I still consider
Kenneth do you mind if I use the body of this rant in a blog entry? I will
leave it verbatim and won't quote anything out of context.
There are many people who misunderstand Maven at a fundamental level, but in
sum total not many Maven users or people attempting to use Maven, actually
traffic t
s/Wayne/Kenneth/
On Oct 23, 2010, at 8:10 PM, Néstor Boscán wrote:
> Wayne
>
> XML is one of the most widespread and flexible languages out there, accept
> it, move on. We could all be investing 5 years in this discussion and we
> wouldn't be writing code that pays our salaries. I have been us
Wayne
XML is one of the most widespread and flexible languages out there, accept
it, move on. We could all be investing 5 years in this discussion and we
wouldn't be writing code that pays our salaries. I have been using maven on
at least 70 java projects succesfully and now is a nightmare for me
> an understandable syntax. With lots of extra libraries. Would it have really
> been so bad to base a declarative codebase on Prolog, a mature, proven
> technology?
I didn't say it before (saved as draft)... but I'd encourage you to
create this Prolog-based build system in your free time over the
On 23 Oct 2010, at 11:15 PM, Kenneth McDonald wrote:
Now, what are the claims made for (or implied by) maven:
1) That it is declaratively, not procedurally, based.
1-a) Whoop-te-do. So are makefiles.
What "maven pom files are declarative" means in English is that the
pom file contains facts
On Oct 23, 2010, at 5:15 PM, Kenneth McDonald wrote:
> First, note that I did tag this as repetitive: You don't need to be reading
> it if you don't want to be rehashing recent issues.
You might feel better now, but emailing future such works to file:/dev/null or
articulating it to your dog mi
First, note that I did tag this as repetitive: You don't need to be reading it
if you don't want to be rehashing recent issues.
However, I want to give a concrete example of just why I dislike maven (and all
other XML solutions) so far. I am trying to do what I think should be a
reasonably eas
33 matches
Mail list logo
