James, most likely part of my animosity is unfamiliarity. But comparing this to ant which I was unfamiliar with at first as well, there is a big difference. In ant there is (almost) no magic, things just work the way you describe it, with Maven a lot of things just "magically" get done. Which is - like Daniel said - is fine if it is what you desired, but tough if it is not as it is hard to tell what to change.
So, I *personally* would like not to use Maven. But this really is a philosophical rather than a technical reservation.Maybe we can have both ant and maven which is what many other projects have as well. Oliver OT: I have the same reservation for commons digester... On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 01:06:29 -0800, James Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oliver, > Is this just your unfamiliarity with what the tool is doing, or is this > something fundamental to Maven? Note that I still haven't had time to > play with Maven, so I'm rather in the dark here. I keep hearing good > things about it from others so I'm curious about the details of your > objections. > > -James > > > > > On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 23:08 +0100, Oliver Zeigermann wrote: > > After I had to work with Maven in the commons project I am at least -0 > > against using Maven as Slide's primary build tool. I have a strong > > animosity against tools that do magic in any way. I need to know what > > is going on. > > > > 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]
