On Aug 6, 2010, at 3:53 PM, Haszlakiewicz, Eric wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kathryn Huxtable [mailto:kath...@kathrynhuxtable.org]
>> 
>> Eric, you're not going to win this one. It's part of the philosophy of
>> Maven. It's also good practice.
>> 
>> Give it up.
>> 
>> I'm not going to fight the site generation being split out of Maven. I
>> think I understand Jason's point on that, though I disagree. And that's
> a
>> *much* less nasty violation of Maven's perceived function, if in fact,
> it
>> is a violation.
>> 
>> What you're wanting is a violation.
> 
> You're missing the point of what I'm asking.  I'm not suggesting that
> maven make it possible or easy to *create* the violation.  I'm
> suggesting that it should be able to *detect* the violation.
> 
> I'm baffled as to why the maven community is so against the idea of
> having additional (optional) checks to detect problems.
> 

The nut of the problem is that if we had to support every optional behavior for 
a particular subset of the community the code base would likely be 
unmaintainable. No one here is going to implement anything toward what you're 
specifically asking for because Maven was specifically designed not to work for 
what you want. It probably would not be hard to do what you ask for, but just 
because something is possible doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it.

Generally when people argue along the lines of "well my organization doesn't do 
that and we can't change" I retort that the community of Maven users is like an 
organization and it's far more powerful then yours. We don't do that and we're 
not going to change. So the onus would be on you to take the sources of Maven 
and alter it for your use and then the cost of maintaining that behavior 
becomes yours and it's not cheap. It's really not cheap. We can't make everyone 
happy and that's ok with us, well it's at least ok with me. I guess I can't 
speak for everyone. There are other build tool options, or you can maintain 
your own fork of Maven with the behavior your organization desires.

Now what you're asking for here sounds particularly disastrous. If across your 
organization a release does not actually mean a release in the Maven sense you 
are going to have so many problems with what plugins normally expect and how 
artifacts may be integrated across different groups. Trust me, you do not want 
to go hunting around trying to figure out if something actually changed because 
looking at an artifact that is supposed to be immutable in Maven but isn't just 
screams out N points of failure. None of the IDE integration would work 
properly, many of the CI tools also wouldn't work very well. You're just asking 
for a world of very expensive pain. Every organization can change. You may not 
be able to change tomorrow but you can change. I've seen it happen at the 
biggest of the big.

My suggestion if you are looking at Maven is to start with a smaller project 
and use Maven the way it's supposed to be used and evaluate if that's workable 
for your organization today. I can tell you with absolute certainty that what 
you're asking for is never going to implemented. But on the dev list we can 
point you in the right direction if you want to hack something up yourself.

> eric
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
> 

Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------

the course of true love never did run smooth ...

 -- Shakespeare



Reply via email to