Thomas,

I need to spend some time playing with maven before I could support
moving to it. I really like ant, so if maven enhances what ant brings
I'm all for that. However, as a developer who's never had maven
installed it's been a real turn-off for me to come across a project that
requires me to download and setup a whole new environment just to build
their code.

If maven is simple enough to setup and integrates well enough with the
existing development environments of the committers/contributors to
Slide, then changing build systems is a possibility.

-James

On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 03:47, Thomas Draier wrote:
> hi,
> i still have 2 patches waiting in the bugzilla , 31196        & 31265 , can 
> anybody have a look at it before changing the structure ?
> restructuration of the cvs would be great - and that also would be very 
> nice to use maven to make the builds, as it completely clarifies 
> dependencies with other modules, that is very helpful when integrating 
> in other projects, and it gives a "standard" file organization for all 
> the project files. maven is replacing ant in more and more projects and 
> i believe that would be the good time to integrate it into slide, what 
> do you think ?
> thomas
> 
> Le 18 oct. 04, � 09:24, Oliver Zeigermann a �crit :
> 
> > +1 to all this.
> >
> > I think we could begin restructuring the CVS HEAD soon - just make 
> > sure everyone committed their patches before - and have it avaiable 
> > for general release in 2.2
> >
> > Oliver
> >
> > James Mason schrieb:
> >
> >> Big +1 from me. Your thread in the PMC actually got me thinking along
> >> similar lines. I'd like to take it a little further than just separate
> >> release cycles, though.
> >> Currently the Slide project is structured something like:
> >>  +- Slide Server
> >>  \
> >>   +- Slide Client
> >>   +- Proposals
> >>   +- Everything else (etc)
> >> which means everything is effectively a child of the server. I'd like 
> >> to
> >> make the Server a sibling of everything else rather than being the
> >> parent. I think this better reflects the current state of the project,
> >> gives more prominence to the other components, and will make builds
> >> easier to manage.
> >> I'd like to see this structure reflected in both cvs and the
> >> documentation/website. I think the former will make builds/release
> >> easier and the latter will make it easier for people to find what
> >> they're looking for (as well as giving more prominence to the other
> >> components).
> >> I think this kind of separation would also provide a good gauge of
> >> whether Slide could stand on its own as a TLP. At this point I don't
> >> think we could (nor do we need to), but if we can organize the
> >> complexity we currently have and make it clear how current and future
> >> components fit under the Slide umbrella I think we'll be mostly ready
> >> if/when there is enough external interest in Slide to warrant a TLP.
> >> -James
> >> On Sun, 2004-10-17 at 22:35, Oliver Zeigermann wrote:
> >>> Folks,
> >>>
> >>> Slide has become a large project with lots of components.
> >>>
> >>> After some experience with the testsuite which until 2.1b2 has not 
> >>> been released at all and the projector which did not make it into 
> >>> the 2.1b2, but seems to be almost ready for prime time, it might be 
> >>> a good idea to release at least these components in a decoupled 
> >>> release process:
> >>>
> >>> - projector: WebDAV workflow and rendering
> >>> - testsuite: most complete WebDAV testsuite
> >>> - wck: simple WebDAV enabling kit for enterprise / business systems 
> >>> of all kinds
> >>> - WebDAV client library (maybe along with ant tasks and connector)
> >>> - WebDAV command line cient
> >>>
> >>> I only recently understood this is possible without any problem and 
> >>> would make the release cycle - which is HUGE for Slide because of 
> >>> its complexity - much shorter. We still could have a general and a 
> >>> bundled release once in a while. But projector could release earlier 
> >>> than the general Slide 2.2 which can not be expected before 2005. 
> >>> Same thing with WCK, it is at least ready for a beta, but of course 
> >>> can not be part of the 2.1 release, so it would have to wait until 
> >>> 2005 as well. I have big  expectations in WCK concerning a boost in 
> >>> publicity for Slide...
> >>>
> >>> Additionally, the server and client parts may have different 
> >>> development speeds, and might be release asynchronously, which is 
> >>> fine as they communicate over WebDAV (2.1 has been an exception as 
> >>> new methods have been added).
> >>>
> >>> We would need additional release managers for each component then. 
> >>> This could all be James, but that would be unfair I guess. So, I 
> >>> would propose Daniel for the projector, Stefan for the testsuite, 
> >>> myself for wck, and Ingo for the client parts. James would remain to 
> >>> be the general release manager.
> >>>
> >>> Of course all this would be on a volunteer base and if there is no 
> >>> release manager for each sub component obviously there is no 
> >>> interest for a dedicated release. For now I can only signal my 
> >>> willingness to do this for WCK. I am pretty sure Daniel would for 
> >>> projector.
> >>>
> >>> Comments? Does this make sense? Do you people want this as well?
> >>>
> >>> Oliver
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>
> >>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to