[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/02/2002 05:35:44 PM: Glenn Stampoulis writes: > Absolutely. That's my current gripe with both Maven and Centipede. Neither > is as flexible as straight ant. For example in Maven b4 simply specifying > some system property for my tests cases requires me to modify Maven > directly. Not really desirable. Glenn, that's gotta be a bug. Can you give some more detail on the Maven lists?
> In Centipede I'm stuck with the source paths that Centipede has defined as > standard. ie, main, test, examples, contrib. Fits great with Poi but > necessarily relevant to other projects. > > In Maven I'm restricted to a single source path and a single test path. > > My test are as follows: > * It should be easy to convert existing projects with various needs. > * It should be easy to extend the build behaviour without modifying the > build tool itself. This is a good summary of my criteria, which I stole from some friends 'zero friction'. > What's the import tag? I couldn't find it in the documentation Ditto. > Ant has has few limitations as a build system. It does tend to bog down for > complicated builds. Just look at the hoops you have to go through to do > conditional logic so I guess I can understand why Maven might have headed in > that direction. Whether it's going to turn out to be a good move remains to > be seen. Ant has a large established userbase with a large range of really > nifty ready to use tasks. The good thing about Jelly is that it can also execute Ant scripts. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Work: http://www.multitask.com.au Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers
