I don't believe that we need Maven 2. But I am willing to see what effect
it would have on our build systems. Fortunately, Maven and Ant build
structures can exist simultaneously, so we can add Maven and see how we all
like the end result. I am not interested to have a Maven generated web-site
unless it is substantially what we have now, except improved. Maven
generated web-sites have generally and historically been hugely bloated.
Our entire site is 28MB, of which javadocs are 19MB.
> 3. We can try to remove libraries from our repository
The Maven repository is not something that we should use. Two primary
problems that Maven must resolve before I would be willing to use it.
First, they must handle HTTP redirection, which e-mail from our mirroring
team indicates they don't support. Second, and more importantly, they must
handle authentication of signed artificts. Without the latter, I would
sooner include the necessary jars, or require the user to download them
directly from a vendor site. Automatic downloading and installation without
verification is wrong, dangerous and irresponsible. I don't mean signed
jars in the Java sense of jar signing. I mean signed as in the ASF release
methodology.
> 4. It will allow us to split James in subprojects: mailet-api,
> mailet-impl, core, smtp, pop3, nntp, fetchmail, mailets,
> spoolmanager having well-defined dependencies between modules.
What prevents us from doing that with Ant? What prevents us from doing any
of this with Ant?
> 5. It simplify the integration in continuous integrations environments.
GUMP works fine, no?
> I know we can achieve some of the tasks even not using Maven2: in this
> case I would like to know what you propose as an alternative.
> Can we [change the directory structure] without switching to Maven2
Why not? But also, why? What benefit do you see, and from what change? I
am not saying no. Just want more details on your thoughts. Obviously, we
already have some separation, e.g., src/java/.../{component} for major
component areas. We could generate separate jars for each.
Not sure if I see a benefit, although it might help with one of my goals,
which is to allow, but not require, a configuration where the protocol
services and the pipeline can all run as separate processes, allowing
distributions and some other benefits (separate restarting and privilege
separation).
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
