On 7/6/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/6/07, Mark T. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:... > I will be the first to admit, most of my fears are based upon a lack of > Maven knowledge.. The more I read/hear it seems that Maven will be able to > address my concerns. This is definitely a very common situation and statement. Nearly every person I've helped get started with Maven (and there are a *lot* of those now) have made this very statement. The one exception to this is a small group of folks who simply refuse to read up and learn something new. Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );' Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/ Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/ Castor - http://castor.org/
Yep, we're definitely one of Bruce's success stories. I think there is a basic problem that people encounter when introduced to Maven: it is another build tool option. But, one must look beyond comparing Maven to Ant, or make, or whatever. Maven, and it's documentation/support channel has come a long way since we first started using it to. Funny, how documentation always seems to come into the discussion with Open projects. Back to the archetype plugin. The ability build skeletons, and import them into the IDE of choice is invaluable from my perspective as a software project manager. I can turn on a C++ developer to a 5-minute tutorial and then all they have to do is populate the logic in Java. The spin up time gets cut extremely short if they don't have to learn about all the stuff going on underneath. Kit
