You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jetspeed-dev@portals.apache.org by Randy Watler <wa...@wispertel.net> on 2006/02/20 19:41:37 UTC
[VOTE] J2 Bulid: Ant vs. Maven
All,
We now have a marginal Maven2 build that is capable of building J2 and
installing on Tomcat. While it has been fun reinventing the wheel for
the Nth time, it is time to get serious about the J2 build. Here are the
options:
1. Continue on with Maven1/J2 plugin.
2. Step up and complete the Maven2 build and create an archetype to
replace the genapp capabilities.
3. Ditch maven and go with Ant.
We need to vote on this before I or anyone else puts more sunk time into
the build. Here are some of the issues:
1. Ant is simple and everyone understands it.
2. Maven1 and the plugin are not stable and are generally complex.
3. Maven2 has simplified things in some ways, but made them more complex
in other ways with the pom.xml inheritance and transitive dependencies.
4. Ant build.xml files can become unmanageable.
5. Maven2 may not be sufficiently mature for our use; we have
encountered several bugs and have used some ugly workarounds for even
our simple build cases handled to date.
6. J2 users have not been exposed to maven, and it can become a
liability quickly since they expect Ant like builds.
7. All IDEs, including Eclipse, can natively build Ant based projects.
8. When the BSR or other repos are down, the Maven offline builds are
hopeless.
9. The training/learning curve with maven is hurting acceptance of the
J2 portal solution.
10. The repository in Maven2 will become even more difficult to manage
with the transitive dependencies: in the end, we will be forced to
manage our own repository and all of the J2 users will need to do the
same.
I am sure there are more... this is not exactly a new topic for any of
us. We are just at the point where we need to make a final decision that
can stand the test of time... J2 needs our cycles, not the build
environment. I am willing to put more time into the build no matter
which way we choose to go... but not unless there is a consensus on the
matter.
Randy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] J2 Bulid: Ant vs. Maven
Posted by Scott Heaberlin <he...@gmail.com>.
I'm just a meager user, not a committer or anything...so I don't
expect to add much but anecdotes...
I can say that when I started using J2 it was via the Maven1 build.
I'd used Maven before, but never with anything that used it like J2.
No offense, but people at my work who were unfamiliar with Maven1
(prior to M2) would ask me "well how can I do ___ with Maven?" I
honestly found myself on more than one occasion telling them "well go
look at the Jetspeed2 project" as it was one of if not the most
extensive user of Maven features ranging from the multiproject plugin
to pom inheritance to pre and post-goals that I'd seen.
I think I agree with Roger - while the current build process may work,
it is highly complex. I don't think that migrating to Ant will aid
that at all. It will only change the syntax of the build code. I
don't agree with "ant is simpler" arguments - because I can tell you
I've spent my fair share of hours trying to figure out what large
builds are trying to do, where they're doing it, and why. Ant's lack
of project standardization is both its best feature for small projects
and its most crippling drawback for maintaining large projects in my
honest opinion.
The whole purpose of the original Maven was to make it such that all
Apache projects were structured and built in a standardized way. M2
was designed to reduce the flexibility and up-front ease that was
present in M1 - but that's a good thing because it reduces the build
process maintenence in the long run. An example of this is the
removal of scriptable plugins and pre/post goals. I know some people
in this thread have said things like "I don't know maven" and "the
project should be easier for new people and people know ant" - but on
the same token, look at the rest of Apache Java projects. A quick
browse of the SVN and CVS repos seem to indicate that most projects
are using either M1 or M2. Standardization across Apache projects (or
at least amont sub-grouping like Portals or Commons) is a huge plus.
I can't tell you how frustrating it was for me to start digging into
log4j source. Sure it has an ant build, but it doesn't (or at that
time didn't) handle retrieval or versioning of dependencies, etc. so I
ended up spending a decent amount of time just setting up the build
environment to make the project buildable as a whole That to me is a
lot more frustrating to me as a non-committer user because there were
only small parts of the code I was interested in (as I would think
would be J2 non-committing users).
As a side note, I notice that Pluto is using an M2 project approach,
but I don't follow the Pluto lists so I wouldn't know of their
migration experience.
I guess I'd just advise that the J2 community decide upon the build
philosophy of J2 *then* find a tool that is in-line with that
philosophy. Maven (especially M2) is much more than just a build
tool... and as such it specifies exactly what its philosophy is. If
that doesn't align with that of the project (not limited to J2 and its
subprojects) or its committers, then it's not the right tool and there
will forever be friction.
Regards,
Scott Heaberlin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] J2 Bulid: Ant vs. Maven
Posted by Roger Ruttimann <ro...@earthlink.net>.
I have seen all the posts on this thread and it seems that a move to ant
is in
favor of people that replied.
Despite of some shortcomings of maven-1 (documentation/plugins) it's still
a powerful tool especially the dependency check. We use maven in our company
and an advantage was that it was simple to add a new project by defining the
dependencies (project.xml) and use the default tasks (war) for a build.
The general trend for apache projects builds is to move to maven-2.
The response so far was positive and lot of maven -1 issues are
resolved with maven-2. If we change the build tool it should be
maven-2 rather than ant.
In my opinion the major issues of the build process are not the tools
but the
complexity of the project. To many dependencies to internal components.
I don't think ant would be a good tool to manage that. With the current
complexity ant's build.xml would become un-manageable.
There was an email thread to simplify the structure and make the build
process
more manageable. We should continue on that.
My suggestion is the following:
* Simplify the complexity of the Jetspeed build.
* Decide if we stay with maven-1 or go with maven-2
Roger
Randy Watler wrote:
>All,
>
>We now have a marginal Maven2 build that is capable of building J2 and
>installing on Tomcat. While it has been fun reinventing the wheel for
>the Nth time, it is time to get serious about the J2 build. Here are the
>options:
>
>1. Continue on with Maven1/J2 plugin.
>2. Step up and complete the Maven2 build and create an archetype to
>replace the genapp capabilities.
>3. Ditch maven and go with Ant.
>
>We need to vote on this before I or anyone else puts more sunk time into
>the build. Here are some of the issues:
>
>1. Ant is simple and everyone understands it.
>2. Maven1 and the plugin are not stable and are generally complex.
>3. Maven2 has simplified things in some ways, but made them more complex
>in other ways with the pom.xml inheritance and transitive dependencies.
>4. Ant build.xml files can become unmanageable.
>5. Maven2 may not be sufficiently mature for our use; we have
>encountered several bugs and have used some ugly workarounds for even
>our simple build cases handled to date.
>6. J2 users have not been exposed to maven, and it can become a
>liability quickly since they expect Ant like builds.
>7. All IDEs, including Eclipse, can natively build Ant based projects.
>8. When the BSR or other repos are down, the Maven offline builds are
>hopeless.
>9. The training/learning curve with maven is hurting acceptance of the
>J2 portal solution.
>10. The repository in Maven2 will become even more difficult to manage
>with the transitive dependencies: in the end, we will be forced to
>manage our own repository and all of the J2 users will need to do the
>same.
>
>I am sure there are more... this is not exactly a new topic for any of
>us. We are just at the point where we need to make a final decision that
>can stand the test of time... J2 needs our cycles, not the build
>environment. I am willing to put more time into the build no matter
>which way we choose to go... but not unless there is a consensus on the
>matter.
>
>Randy
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] J2 Bulid: Ant vs. Maven
Posted by Santiago Gala <sg...@apache.org>.
El lun, 20-02-2006 a las 23:40 -0500, David Jencks escribió:
> +1 maven2
>
> I believe many of the problems encountered in the m2 conversion are
> likely to be due to bad project structure or abuse of maven1
> features. I've pretty much always found that when something is hard
It might as well be. Maven documentation has always been nil, while ant
has a more familiar, "make-like", process.
> in maven it means there's a better way to set up the project. I
> think there are enormous problems in j2 with excess uncontrolled
> external dependencies and I think these problems, difficult to deal
I'd rather say that the main problem in jetspeed is not of external
dependencies, but of *internal* ones. Jetspeed external dependencies do
change slowly, and don't usually impact the build. Inter-module
dependencies, on the other hand, are difficult to handle correctly,
specially as we have not separate versioning for them.
> with in maven, will become completely untractable in ant. I would
> prefer to spend some time working on the m2 build so it works
> reliably. I'm really unlikely to spend any time on any structural
> improvements if there is an ant build.
>
We are stuck in maven like two years, and only Ate, David, Randy, ...
have actually contributed to the build mechanisms. So I'd actually
respect any decision they take. Specially since I don't really
understand maven 1 or 2.
> I hope this does not appear too negative but I feel really strongly
> about this.
>
Cool, we need some discussion.
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
Regards
Santiago
>
> On Feb 20, 2006, at 1:41 PM, Randy Watler wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > We now have a marginal Maven2 build that is capable of building J2 and
> > installing on Tomcat. While it has been fun reinventing the wheel for
> > the Nth time, it is time to get serious about the J2 build. Here
> > are the
> > options:
> >
> > 1. Continue on with Maven1/J2 plugin.
> > 2. Step up and complete the Maven2 build and create an archetype to
> > replace the genapp capabilities.
> > 3. Ditch maven and go with Ant.
> >
> > We need to vote on this before I or anyone else puts more sunk time
> > into
> > the build. Here are some of the issues:
> >
> > 1. Ant is simple and everyone understands it.
> > 2. Maven1 and the plugin are not stable and are generally complex.
> > 3. Maven2 has simplified things in some ways, but made them more
> > complex
> > in other ways with the pom.xml inheritance and transitive
> > dependencies.
> > 4. Ant build.xml files can become unmanageable.
> > 5. Maven2 may not be sufficiently mature for our use; we have
> > encountered several bugs and have used some ugly workarounds for even
> > our simple build cases handled to date.
> > 6. J2 users have not been exposed to maven, and it can become a
> > liability quickly since they expect Ant like builds.
> > 7. All IDEs, including Eclipse, can natively build Ant based projects.
> > 8. When the BSR or other repos are down, the Maven offline builds are
> > hopeless.
> > 9. The training/learning curve with maven is hurting acceptance of the
> > J2 portal solution.
> > 10. The repository in Maven2 will become even more difficult to manage
> > with the transitive dependencies: in the end, we will be forced to
> > manage our own repository and all of the J2 users will need to do the
> > same.
> >
> > I am sure there are more... this is not exactly a new topic for any of
> > us. We are just at the point where we need to make a final decision
> > that
> > can stand the test of time... J2 needs our cycles, not the build
> > environment. I am willing to put more time into the build no matter
> > which way we choose to go... but not unless there is a consensus on
> > the
> > matter.
> >
> > Randy
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org
>
--
VP and Chair, Apache Portals (http://portals.apache.org)
Apache Software Foundation
Re: [VOTE] J2 Bulid: Ant vs. Maven
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
+1 maven2
I believe many of the problems encountered in the m2 conversion are
likely to be due to bad project structure or abuse of maven1
features. I've pretty much always found that when something is hard
in maven it means there's a better way to set up the project. I
think there are enormous problems in j2 with excess uncontrolled
external dependencies and I think these problems, difficult to deal
with in maven, will become completely untractable in ant. I would
prefer to spend some time working on the m2 build so it works
reliably. I'm really unlikely to spend any time on any structural
improvements if there is an ant build.
I hope this does not appear too negative but I feel really strongly
about this.
thanks
david jencks
On Feb 20, 2006, at 1:41 PM, Randy Watler wrote:
> All,
>
> We now have a marginal Maven2 build that is capable of building J2 and
> installing on Tomcat. While it has been fun reinventing the wheel for
> the Nth time, it is time to get serious about the J2 build. Here
> are the
> options:
>
> 1. Continue on with Maven1/J2 plugin.
> 2. Step up and complete the Maven2 build and create an archetype to
> replace the genapp capabilities.
> 3. Ditch maven and go with Ant.
>
> We need to vote on this before I or anyone else puts more sunk time
> into
> the build. Here are some of the issues:
>
> 1. Ant is simple and everyone understands it.
> 2. Maven1 and the plugin are not stable and are generally complex.
> 3. Maven2 has simplified things in some ways, but made them more
> complex
> in other ways with the pom.xml inheritance and transitive
> dependencies.
> 4. Ant build.xml files can become unmanageable.
> 5. Maven2 may not be sufficiently mature for our use; we have
> encountered several bugs and have used some ugly workarounds for even
> our simple build cases handled to date.
> 6. J2 users have not been exposed to maven, and it can become a
> liability quickly since they expect Ant like builds.
> 7. All IDEs, including Eclipse, can natively build Ant based projects.
> 8. When the BSR or other repos are down, the Maven offline builds are
> hopeless.
> 9. The training/learning curve with maven is hurting acceptance of the
> J2 portal solution.
> 10. The repository in Maven2 will become even more difficult to manage
> with the transitive dependencies: in the end, we will be forced to
> manage our own repository and all of the J2 users will need to do the
> same.
>
> I am sure there are more... this is not exactly a new topic for any of
> us. We are just at the point where we need to make a final decision
> that
> can stand the test of time... J2 needs our cycles, not the build
> environment. I am willing to put more time into the build no matter
> which way we choose to go... but not unless there is a consensus on
> the
> matter.
>
> Randy
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org
[VOTE] J2 Bulid: Ant vs. Maven
Posted by Marky Goldstein <re...@rosa.com>.
+ Maven2 + Continuum
We have just set it up in our company and are running
a first project (some interdependent projects actually).
I also know some other people that report good results with
this combination.
Whatever is not good in Maven2 still, can be resolved by
engaging within the Apache community. Jetspeed is of great
importance to Apache, and if you ask me there is only the
escape of going forward.
Best regards,
Marky
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] J2 Bulid: Ant vs. Maven
Posted by Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>.
+1 for Ant...
While I've been a maven advocate a long time and still like (some of) the ideas behind it,
I've lost my belief in it.
For (large) development groups with a strict company policy and control/guidance and dedicated
attention to maintaining maven repositories and keeping poms in sync, maven may still be the best
way to go. But, you better have maximum to absolute control over users environments then.
And, as David Taylor also mentioned, you must be willing to sacrifice good IDE support for
debugging and testing.
I do belief others are getting good results with maven. For one of my clients this is indeed
the case (even with maven-1). But I expect most will be in a situation as I described above.
In all other situations my experience with maven has been negative or very negative.
It has been a very big productivity loss in numerous occasions for me, especially when trying to deal
with the plugin and custom J2 setups.
Until now, Randy only ported the static part of our maven-1 environment.
Even that hasn't been easy and already needs dirty workarounds to get that far.
But I think the most important build features J2 should provide are simple configuration, build and deployment
for custom portals. And especially that type of customization is, and in my opinion will remain, the biggest
problem with maven. The J2 customization we currently provide with maven-1 is rather crude and full of issues.
If I believed maven-2 would allow us to solve our customization wishes and make this easy and transparently
to use, I would now vote for spending more time on it.
Well, I don't.
I expect we will still need to write custom "goals", ant build script, or whatever to be called by
or "hacked" into the maven-2 build process as we're doing today with horrendous maven.xml/plugin jelly code.
Ate
Randy Watler wrote:
> All,
>
> We now have a marginal Maven2 build that is capable of building J2 and
> installing on Tomcat. While it has been fun reinventing the wheel for
> the Nth time, it is time to get serious about the J2 build. Here are the
> options:
>
> 1. Continue on with Maven1/J2 plugin.
> 2. Step up and complete the Maven2 build and create an archetype to
> replace the genapp capabilities.
> 3. Ditch maven and go with Ant.
>
> We need to vote on this before I or anyone else puts more sunk time into
> the build. Here are some of the issues:
>
> 1. Ant is simple and everyone understands it.
> 2. Maven1 and the plugin are not stable and are generally complex.
> 3. Maven2 has simplified things in some ways, but made them more complex
> in other ways with the pom.xml inheritance and transitive dependencies.
> 4. Ant build.xml files can become unmanageable.
> 5. Maven2 may not be sufficiently mature for our use; we have
> encountered several bugs and have used some ugly workarounds for even
> our simple build cases handled to date.
> 6. J2 users have not been exposed to maven, and it can become a
> liability quickly since they expect Ant like builds.
> 7. All IDEs, including Eclipse, can natively build Ant based projects.
> 8. When the BSR or other repos are down, the Maven offline builds are
> hopeless.
> 9. The training/learning curve with maven is hurting acceptance of the
> J2 portal solution.
> 10. The repository in Maven2 will become even more difficult to manage
> with the transitive dependencies: in the end, we will be forced to
> manage our own repository and all of the J2 users will need to do the
> same.
>
> I am sure there are more... this is not exactly a new topic for any of
> us. We are just at the point where we need to make a final decision that
> can stand the test of time... J2 needs our cycles, not the build
> environment. I am willing to put more time into the build no matter
> which way we choose to go... but not unless there is a consensus on the
> matter.
>
> Randy
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] J2 Bulid: Ant vs. Maven
Posted by Andreas Schildbach <an...@schildbach.de>.
+1 Ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] J2 Bulid: Ant vs. Maven
Posted by David Le Strat <dl...@yahoo.com>.
+1 Maven2. I have been using M2 in my work
environment for over 6-8 months rolling it out to
large development groups and adoption has not been an
issue.
Most Apache projects are moving to M2, I would
question the fact that M2 would hurt J2's adoption.
What is making the build difficult right now is
complex property management, not the fact that we are
using maven or ant. In addition, with Maven2, ant
fans can use the antlr plugin to plugin their ant
scripts.
My 2 cents.
Regards,
David Le Strat
--- Randy Watler <wa...@wispertel.net> wrote:
> All,
>
> We now have a marginal Maven2 build that is capable
> of building J2 and
> installing on Tomcat. While it has been fun
> reinventing the wheel for
> the Nth time, it is time to get serious about the J2
> build. Here are the
> options:
>
> 1. Continue on with Maven1/J2 plugin.
> 2. Step up and complete the Maven2 build and create
> an archetype to
> replace the genapp capabilities.
> 3. Ditch maven and go with Ant.
>
> We need to vote on this before I or anyone else puts
> more sunk time into
> the build. Here are some of the issues:
>
> 1. Ant is simple and everyone understands it.
> 2. Maven1 and the plugin are not stable and are
> generally complex.
> 3. Maven2 has simplified things in some ways, but
> made them more complex
> in other ways with the pom.xml inheritance and
> transitive dependencies.
> 4. Ant build.xml files can become unmanageable.
> 5. Maven2 may not be sufficiently mature for our
> use; we have
> encountered several bugs and have used some ugly
> workarounds for even
> our simple build cases handled to date.
> 6. J2 users have not been exposed to maven, and it
> can become a
> liability quickly since they expect Ant like builds.
> 7. All IDEs, including Eclipse, can natively build
> Ant based projects.
> 8. When the BSR or other repos are down, the Maven
> offline builds are
> hopeless.
> 9. The training/learning curve with maven is hurting
> acceptance of the
> J2 portal solution.
> 10. The repository in Maven2 will become even more
> difficult to manage
> with the transitive dependencies: in the end, we
> will be forced to
> manage our own repository and all of the J2 users
> will need to do the
> same.
>
> I am sure there are more... this is not exactly a
> new topic for any of
> us. We are just at the point where we need to make a
> final decision that
> can stand the test of time... J2 needs our cycles,
> not the build
> environment. I am willing to put more time into the
> build no matter
> which way we choose to go... but not unless there is
> a consensus on the
> matter.
>
> Randy
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org
>
>
________________________
David Le Strat
Blogging @ http://dlsthoughts.blogspot.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] J2 Bulid: Ant vs. Maven
Posted by Ender KILICOGLU <en...@kilicoglu.nom.tr>.
Hello everyone
Long time ago I started to use jetspeed and follow improvement. I am still
using maven and ant development but still I am having problem on jetspeed2
builds. I completly agree David (Sean Talor) about maven problems. Ant much
more easier to use. Jetspeed is a open source project and build environment
must be newbie friendly. So they will have courage to involve. But now it
require addtional knowledge and experience. Its to late to talk about but I
have same feelings about svn too :)
So
+1 Ant
Scincerely
Ender KILICOGLU
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Watler [mailto:watler@wispertel.net]
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 8:42 PM
To: Jetspeed Developers List
Subject: [VOTE] J2 Bulid: Ant vs. Maven
All,
We now have a marginal Maven2 build that is capable of building J2 and
installing on Tomcat. While it has been fun reinventing the wheel for the
Nth time, it is time to get serious about the J2 build. Here are the
options:
1. Continue on with Maven1/J2 plugin.
2. Step up and complete the Maven2 build and create an archetype to replace
the genapp capabilities.
3. Ditch maven and go with Ant.
We need to vote on this before I or anyone else puts more sunk time into the
build. Here are some of the issues:
1. Ant is simple and everyone understands it.
2. Maven1 and the plugin are not stable and are generally complex.
3. Maven2 has simplified things in some ways, but made them more complex in
other ways with the pom.xml inheritance and transitive dependencies.
4. Ant build.xml files can become unmanageable.
5. Maven2 may not be sufficiently mature for our use; we have encountered
several bugs and have used some ugly workarounds for even our simple build
cases handled to date.
6. J2 users have not been exposed to maven, and it can become a liability
quickly since they expect Ant like builds.
7. All IDEs, including Eclipse, can natively build Ant based projects.
8. When the BSR or other repos are down, the Maven offline builds are
hopeless.
9. The training/learning curve with maven is hurting acceptance of the
J2 portal solution.
10. The repository in Maven2 will become even more difficult to manage with
the transitive dependencies: in the end, we will be forced to manage our own
repository and all of the J2 users will need to do the same.
I am sure there are more... this is not exactly a new topic for any of us.
We are just at the point where we need to make a final decision that can
stand the test of time... J2 needs our cycles, not the build environment. I
am willing to put more time into the build no matter which way we choose to
go... but not unless there is a consensus on the matter.
Randy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] J2 Bulid: Ant vs. Maven
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
I know many of you don't know me - I'm a Cocoon and Portals committer
(which I guess means I have commit rights to Jetspeed - although I
certainly don't believe I have your permission to do that) and have been
monitoring these lists as I will be using Jetspeed 2 in an upcoming
project.
FWIW - The Cocoon team has been working hard to convert from the ant
build to maven. Cocoon has huge problems in that its download is huge,
primarily because of all the bundled jars. It also has a lot of
optional parts which end users should have to download if they don't
want them. There have been issues with Maven but they seem to disappear
fairly rapidly.
I myself have been using Maven 1 for a couple of years and much prefer
it over Ant, despite all of its problems. I'm really looking forward to
using Maven 2. As a matter of fact, we plan to use Maven 2 for the
project that will be using Jetspeed.
Now, since I'm pretty sure that I am going to have to modify some of the
login stuff for our environment eventually, I guess I'd prefer a Maven 2
build.
Ralph
David Sean Taylor wrote:
> Ive invested time in Maven-2, not near as much as Randy though
> He has really invested a lot of time and I think we need to consider
> his opinion above all us, since he experienced building Jetspeed + maven
>
> I have travelled all over the world teaching people Jetspeed, and time
> and time again, I feel like Im spending way too much time debugging
> Maven and plugin problems and teaching people Maven and trying to
> explain why they need Maven. Im seeing that people really want:
>
> 1. simple builds they can understand. they understand Ant
> 2. complete eclipse integration a must
> this means unit tests must work in eclipse
> this means that the entire project can easily drop in and build in
> eclipse
> 3. continuous builds. many big companies use cruise control + ant as a
> standard. bringing in maven is a hard sell these days. not sure how to
> get around that
>
> I think its time we listen to our community of users and stop trying
> to force something on them that they are not asking for. Maybe we
> should ask this question on jetspeed-user list
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] J2 Bulid: Ant vs. Maven
Posted by David Sean Taylor <da...@bluesunrise.com>.
Ive invested time in Maven-2, not near as much as Randy though
He has really invested a lot of time and I think we need to consider his
opinion above all us, since he experienced building Jetspeed + maven
I have travelled all over the world teaching people Jetspeed, and time
and time again, I feel like Im spending way too much time debugging
Maven and plugin problems and teaching people Maven and trying to
explain why they need Maven. Im seeing that people really want:
1. simple builds they can understand. they understand Ant
2. complete eclipse integration a must
this means unit tests must work in eclipse
this means that the entire project can easily drop in and build in
eclipse
3. continuous builds. many big companies use cruise control + ant as a
standard. bringing in maven is a hard sell these days. not sure how to
get around that
I think its time we listen to our community of users and stop trying to
force something on them that they are not asking for. Maybe we should
ask this question on jetspeed-user list
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] J2 Bulid: Ant vs. Maven
Posted by Scott T Weaver <sc...@binary-designs.net>.
+1 for Ant. (Haven't looked at Maven 2.0, and honestly I don't care to. I
really don't want to learn another build system)
It has been over a month since I totally ditched the maven-plugin for a
custom ant script. All I do (in my ant script) is pull down the pre-built
jetspeed-2.0.war, explode it into a temp build directory, then copy
changes/additions from my dev environment. We use our own dependencies task
we have had for some time now to pull down deps from both maven repos and
local ones. I manually run the SQL myself as I suspect most self-respecting
admins/developers do anyways ;)
I no longer have to worry about maven's crappy caching mechanism or figuring
which version of the plugin my project is using. The other bonus (which has
already been stated) is other developers can easily understand what is going
since my ant script is patterned after standard ant template we use here.
Regards,
-Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Watler [mailto:watler@wispertel.net]
> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 1:42 PM
> To: Jetspeed Developers List
> Subject: [VOTE] J2 Bulid: Ant vs. Maven
>
> All,
>
> We now have a marginal Maven2 build that is capable of building J2 and
> installing on Tomcat. While it has been fun reinventing the wheel for
> the Nth time, it is time to get serious about the J2 build. Here are the
> options:
>
> 1. Continue on with Maven1/J2 plugin.
> 2. Step up and complete the Maven2 build and create an archetype to
> replace the genapp capabilities.
> 3. Ditch maven and go with Ant.
>
> We need to vote on this before I or anyone else puts more sunk time into
> the build. Here are some of the issues:
>
> 1. Ant is simple and everyone understands it.
> 2. Maven1 and the plugin are not stable and are generally complex.
> 3. Maven2 has simplified things in some ways, but made them more complex
> in other ways with the pom.xml inheritance and transitive dependencies.
> 4. Ant build.xml files can become unmanageable.
> 5. Maven2 may not be sufficiently mature for our use; we have
> encountered several bugs and have used some ugly workarounds for even
> our simple build cases handled to date.
> 6. J2 users have not been exposed to maven, and it can become a
> liability quickly since they expect Ant like builds.
> 7. All IDEs, including Eclipse, can natively build Ant based projects.
> 8. When the BSR or other repos are down, the Maven offline builds are
> hopeless.
> 9. The training/learning curve with maven is hurting acceptance of the
> J2 portal solution.
> 10. The repository in Maven2 will become even more difficult to manage
> with the transitive dependencies: in the end, we will be forced to
> manage our own repository and all of the J2 users will need to do the
> same.
>
> I am sure there are more... this is not exactly a new topic for any of
> us. We are just at the point where we need to make a final decision that
> can stand the test of time... J2 needs our cycles, not the build
> environment. I am willing to put more time into the build no matter
> which way we choose to go... but not unless there is a consensus on the
> matter.
>
> Randy
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-unsubscribe@portals.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: jetspeed-dev-help@portals.apache.org