what is magic is that some tasks (most of what we can possibly expect) are already written and bundled in maven plugins. each plugin is in charge of a group of tasks, for example the java-plugin contains all tasks related to compilation. but all of these scripts are available, and you can check the .jelly files in the maven/cache directory - they just look like ant scripts, and since each of them is in charge of a specific kind of tasks, they remain quite short and readable. the advantage is that anybody using maven is using the same tasks, which makes it easier for a developer to switch from a project to another. but if something is not supported by maven, or you don't like the way it's done, it is still possible to write your own maven.xml file and add or extend specific tasks (or goals), exactly as you'll do with ant. so for each task you want to do, you'll have to check first if the specific task you need can be done with a maven plugin, or if you need to write your own task in a maven.xml file. from my little experience with maven , there are a only few tasks that i needed to write in a maven.xml file, and those tasks completely integrates with the standard plugins. so even if many things are done "automatically", i believe it remains flexible enough. concerning slide, i did not need to write any specifc task - just configured generic plugins.
of course it has my +1 :-)
thomas
Le 21 nov. 04, � 17:40, Oliver Zeigermann a �crit :
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
