You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org by Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> on 2015/04/22 18:35:56 UTC
Maven
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Luis Bernardo <lm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> I think that maven will be embraced as soon as there is a volunteer to do
> the transition.
>
A few years ago I went through the process of creating a full maven
configuration for FOP; however, the group was not ready to make the
transition at that time.
I have recently converted another multiple-module internal project to maven
from ant, and would be able to repeat the process on fop. However, I don't
want to do it unless there is support to switch over.
>
>
> On 4/22/15 6:13 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
> on another point, when can we transition to maven? our ant configurations
> are difficult to maintain and understand; we should modernize
>
>
Re: Fwd: Re: Maven
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
I was just trying to point out that we are not the only Apache project
that is grappling with the build process.
If we ever decide to support the framework as a separate product, the
question of Maven Central comes into play.
I don't see any useful way or need to include OFBiz as a whole as a
dependency in another project.
If there is a major restructuring of the project into modules that stand
alone more naturally, this might become an issue.
A custom version could pull all of the modules that are not modified
from Maven Central as dependencies and only build the modules that are
custom.
This would make life easier and speed up the build a lot.
It would make it a lot clearer about where the customization was done
and likely simplify testing.
Currently, I am sure that for OFBiz, being able to deploy to Maven
Central does not have the same importance as it does to the FOP and
XMLGraphics teams (none vs a lot).
Ron
On 23/04/2015 11:11 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
> As for deploying of artifacts, I've already done a "mvn install"
> locally, which copies the built files into $HOME/.m2/; so I know that
> eventually when everything is done, we could deploy into the global
> shared repo.
>
>
> On 04/22/2015 09:03 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>>
>> Just to let everyone know that we are not the only people working on
>> a switch to Maven.
>> The Apache FOP team is also trying to see what the impact would be of
>> switching to Maven.
>>
>> Being able to put libraries in Maven Central more easily seems to be
>> a hot topic.
>> Building the appropriate artifacts seems to be hard using their
>> existing build tools.
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message from FOP mailing List--------
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Luis Bernardo
>> <lmpmbernardo@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Maybe I only spoke for myself, but I am in: +1
>>
>> From what I understand publishing the source jars to maven central
>> would be automatic then, since there is some plugin for that. Given
>> the fact that I have spent many hours adapting the Batik ant file to
>> produce the source jars for maven central (I am still in the process
>> of checking the result is correct) any steps that help with that in
>> the future (be either for FOP or Batik) are welcome.
>>
>>
>> that's my exact thinking; one reason we have historically done a poor
>> job of maven deployment is because we aren't using maven; switching
>> to maven will make that a no-brainer and ensure correct deployment
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/22/15 6:35 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Luis Bernardo
>>> <lmpmbernardo@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that maven will be embraced as soon as there is a
>>> volunteer to do the transition.
>>>
>>>
>>> A few years ago I went through the process of creating a full
>>> maven configuration for FOP; however, the group was not ready to
>>> make the transition at that time.
>>>
>>> I have recently converted another multiple-module internal project
>>> to maven from ant, and would be able to repeat the process on fop.
>>> However, I don't want to do it unless there is support to switch
>>> over.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/22/15 6:13 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>>> on another point, when can we transition to maven? our ant
>>>> configurations are difficult to maintain and understand; we
>>>> should modernize
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: Fwd: Re: Maven
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
As for deploying of artifacts, I've already done a "mvn install"
locally, which copies the built files into $HOME/.m2/; so I know that
eventually when everything is done, we could deploy into the global
shared repo.
On 04/22/2015 09:03 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>
> Just to let everyone know that we are not the only people working on a
> switch to Maven.
> The Apache FOP team is also trying to see what the impact would be of
> switching to Maven.
>
> Being able to put libraries in Maven Central more easily seems to be a
> hot topic.
> Building the appropriate artifacts seems to be hard using their
> existing build tools.
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message from FOP mailing List--------
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Luis Bernardo <lmpmbernardo@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> Maybe I only spoke for myself, but I am in: +1
>
> From what I understand publishing the source jars to maven central
> would be automatic then, since there is some plugin for that. Given
> the fact that I have spent many hours adapting the Batik ant file to
> produce the source jars for maven central (I am still in the process
> of checking the result is correct) any steps that help with that in
> the future (be either for FOP or Batik) are welcome.
>
>
> that's my exact thinking; one reason we have historically done a poor
> job of maven deployment is because we aren't using maven; switching to
> maven will make that a no-brainer and ensure correct deployment
>
>
>
> On 4/22/15 6:35 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Luis Bernardo
>> <lmpmbernardo@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think that maven will be embraced as soon as there is a
>> volunteer to do the transition.
>>
>>
>> A few years ago I went through the process of creating a full
>> maven configuration for FOP; however, the group was not ready to
>> make the transition at that time.
>>
>> I have recently converted another multiple-module internal project
>> to maven from ant, and would be able to repeat the process on fop.
>> However, I don't want to do it unless there is support to switch
>> over.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/22/15 6:13 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>> on another point, when can we transition to maven? our ant
>>> configurations are difficult to maintain and understand; we
>>> should modernize
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Fwd: Re: Maven
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
Just to let everyone know that we are not the only people working on a
switch to Maven.
The Apache FOP team is also trying to see what the impact would be of
switching to Maven.
Being able to put libraries in Maven Central more easily seems to be a
hot topic.
Building the appropriate artifacts seems to be hard using their existing
build tools.
-------- Forwarded Message from FOP mailing List--------
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Luis Bernardo <lmpmbernardo@gmail.com
<ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Maybe I only spoke for myself, but I am in: +1
From what I understand publishing the source jars to maven central
would be automatic then, since there is some plugin for that. Given
the fact that I have spent many hours adapting the Batik ant file to
produce the source jars for maven central (I am still in the process
of checking the result is correct) any steps that help with that in
the future (be either for FOP or Batik) are welcome.
that's my exact thinking; one reason we have historically done a poor
job of maven deployment is because we aren't using maven; switching to
maven will make that a no-brainer and ensure correct deployment
On 4/22/15 6:35 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Luis Bernardo
> <lmpmbernardo@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> I think that maven will be embraced as soon as there is a
> volunteer to do the transition.
>
>
> A few years ago I went through the process of creating a full
> maven configuration for FOP; however, the group was not ready to
> make the transition at that time.
>
> I have recently converted another multiple-module internal project
> to maven from ant, and would be able to repeat the process on fop.
> However, I don't want to do it unless there is support to switch over.
>
>
>
> On 4/22/15 6:13 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>> on another point, when can we transition to maven? our ant
>> configurations are difficult to maintain and understand; we
>> should modernize
>
>
>
Re: Maven
Posted by Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Luis Bernardo <lm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Maybe I only spoke for myself, but I am in: +1
>
> From what I understand publishing the source jars to maven central would
> be automatic then, since there is some plugin for that. Given the fact that
> I have spent many hours adapting the Batik ant file to produce the source
> jars for maven central (I am still in the process of checking the result is
> correct) any steps that help with that in the future (be either for FOP or
> Batik) are welcome.
>
that's my exact thinking; one reason we have historically done a poor job
of maven deployment is because we aren't using maven; switching to maven
will make that a no-brainer and ensure correct deployment
>
>
> On 4/22/15 6:35 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Luis Bernardo <lm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think that maven will be embraced as soon as there is a volunteer to do
>> the transition.
>>
>
> A few years ago I went through the process of creating a full maven
> configuration for FOP; however, the group was not ready to make the
> transition at that time.
>
> I have recently converted another multiple-module internal project to
> maven from ant, and would be able to repeat the process on fop. However, I
> don't want to do it unless there is support to switch over.
>
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/22/15 6:13 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>
>> on another point, when can we transition to maven? our ant
>> configurations are difficult to maintain and understand; we should modernize
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Maven
Posted by Luis Bernardo <lm...@gmail.com>.
Maybe I only spoke for myself, but I am in: +1
From what I understand publishing the source jars to maven central
would be automatic then, since there is some plugin for that. Given the
fact that I have spent many hours adapting the Batik ant file to produce
the source jars for maven central (I am still in the process of checking
the result is correct) any steps that help with that in the future (be
either for FOP or Batik) are welcome.
On 4/22/15 6:35 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Luis Bernardo
> <lmpmbernardo@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> I think that maven will be embraced as soon as there is a
> volunteer to do the transition.
>
>
> A few years ago I went through the process of creating a full maven
> configuration for FOP; however, the group was not ready to make the
> transition at that time.
>
> I have recently converted another multiple-module internal project to
> maven from ant, and would be able to repeat the process on fop.
> However, I don't want to do it unless there is support to switch over.
>
>
>
> On 4/22/15 6:13 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>> on another point, when can we transition to maven? our ant
>> configurations are difficult to maintain and understand; we
>> should modernize
>
>
>
Re: Maven
Posted by Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Glenn,
>
> I guess you are referring to this patch you prepared;
> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49881
>
> I did search the archives but couldn't find the previous discussion on
> this topic.
>
> Maven is a pain to setup, but once configured it is actually easier to use
> than ant as it gives you 1 step IDE configuration which is a big bonus :-)
>
> So I'm +1 on switching, but we should do this across all projects in XML
> Graphics, not just FOP. And in my view this should be done after we've
> completed the current planned release of all projects.
>
yes
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> On 22/04/2015 17:35, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Luis Bernardo <lmpmbernardo@gmail.com
>> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think that maven will be embraced as soon as there is a
>> volunteer to do the transition.
>>
>>
>> A few years ago I went through the process of creating a full maven
>> configuration for FOP; however, the group was not ready to make the
>> transition at that time.
>>
>> I have recently converted another multiple-module internal project to
>> maven from ant, and would be able to repeat the process on fop. However, I
>> don't want to do it unless there is support to switch over.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/22/15 6:13 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>
>>> on another point, when can we transition to maven? our ant
>>> configurations are difficult to maintain and understand; we
>>> should modernize
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Maven
Posted by Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>.
Hi Glenn,
I guess you are referring to this patch you prepared;
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49881
I did search the archives but couldn't find the previous discussion on
this topic.
Maven is a pain to setup, but once configured it is actually easier to
use than ant as it gives you 1 step IDE configuration which is a big
bonus :-)
So I'm +1 on switching, but we should do this across all projects in XML
Graphics, not just FOP. And in my view this should be done after we've
completed the current planned release of all projects.
Thanks,
Chris
On 22/04/2015 17:35, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Luis Bernardo
> <lmpmbernardo@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> I think that maven will be embraced as soon as there is a
> volunteer to do the transition.
>
>
> A few years ago I went through the process of creating a full maven
> configuration for FOP; however, the group was not ready to make the
> transition at that time.
>
> I have recently converted another multiple-module internal project to
> maven from ant, and would be able to repeat the process on fop.
> However, I don't want to do it unless there is support to switch over.
>
>
>
> On 4/22/15 6:13 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>> on another point, when can we transition to maven? our ant
>> configurations are difficult to maintain and understand; we
>> should modernize
>
>
>