From: "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Vincent Massol wrote: > > > Look. I think we are talking about the same thing. Except that in Maven > > case there is no need for a build.xml file at all. However, it is > > certainly needed for more complex builds (which is the reason for our > > maven.xml). In addition, Jelly let's us access easily the XML POM. > > > > [snip] > > Exactly :-) > > We attain the same goals from different perspectives, with different > approaches.
I'm not sure Maven and Centipede even have the same goals. Certainly they seem similar but maybe the different approaches actually highlight different goals. > Since James tried to explain why he thinks using Jelly up front is > better, I explained why we think it's not necessarily needed. I never tried to imply that Jelly was better than Ant. I just was trying to answer Glen's initial question which was... >> I'd be interested in learning more about what problems you believe Jelly >> solves that Ant was unable to. For what Maven is trying to do we've so far found Jelly to be a cleaner solution. > I really don't /know/ what is the best, since we are both in new > territory, it's our best guess ;-) > > But it seems we are really gaining from each other, even if sometimes > we are not aware of it. :-) Agreed. James _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
