Hi Alex On 29 July 2010 16:34, Alex North <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm going to discuss this with the rest of the team. I'm not greatly > familiar with either ant or maven, but a decision I'm fairly confident about > is that we don't want the overhead of supporting two different build > systems. It's fantastic that you're willing to help us get started but the > fact remains that having two different builds will add continued overhead to > making changes.
I appreciate that, although I think the maintenance burden wouldn't be that great. Guava appears to support ant and maven builds: http://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/source/browse/#svn/trunk One could argue that you wouldn't be maintaining 2 build systems, you would actually be maintaining one build system (ant) plus one metadata description of the project which just happens to be complete enough to do builds and releases ;) A good proportion of Google project jars end up in maven repositories, but without a maintained pom.xml deploying to repos is a relatively tedious manual process, so the versions often lag by a few releases. > We're going to make the build more modular, perhaps with a jar per top-level > package, which will help the self-contained packages stay self-contained and > reduce the overhead of using any one. I'll look into the individual ones you > mention, but if they're useful outside any one application then I suspect > libraries is the right place for them. Federation-related libraries still > need sharing. This would be fine, but can you *please* consider having a jar per source directory instead of a jar per top-level package. The cost for the ant build would be zero, but having a single src/ directory makes it virtually impossible to use all of maven's goodness. No matter what you eventually decide to do, I'll be attempting to maintain a maven build outside the tree. The best example I can find of a project which produces multiple artifacts from an ant build would be GWT. If something like this directory structure was adopted I would be happy: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/#svn/trunk > I'll see if something can be done about that unmaintained jar, too. That would be much appreciated. I think there would be a good case for the xmpp/whack sources to be included directly in source control, especially if the federation code is in its own src directory ;) cheers -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
