You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mahout.apache.org by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> on 2008/08/05 02:47:53 UTC
Maven POMs
So, what's are plan for the Maven poms? How do we intend to keep them
in sync such that they are actually useful for those who want to use
Maven (not me, but others...)?
-Grant
Re: Maven POMs
Posted by pi song <pi...@apache.org>.
A suggestion from me (off topic).
Maven sometimes downloads bad jars for you. Make sure that you always keep a
working copy of your repository for your team members.
Pi
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>wrote:
> So, what's are plan for the Maven poms? How do we intend to keep them in
> sync such that they are actually useful for those who want to use Maven (not
> me, but others...)?
>
> -Grant
>
Re: Maven POMs
Posted by Karl Wettin <ka...@gmail.com>.
5 aug 2008 kl. 12.42 skrev Grant Ingersoll:
> I'd just like to see the poms in sync (which I broke)
Fixed. At least mvn install and mvn idea:idea works again.
karl
Re: Maven POMs
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
On Aug 4, 2008, at 9:32 PM, Sean Owen wrote:
> I don't know, I have not found a great solution for this. I don't use
> Maven myself but am not against learning how to use it effectively.
> Part of that is sorting out how to keep it in sync with Ant build
> scripts. We could delegate all building to Ant. Perhaps that's the
> easiest way.
>
> Anyone know enough about Maven to understand best practices? I assume
> some does or else we wouldn't be bothering with it.
I used to use Maven a lot. I gave up on it. It does great at the
easy stuff, like compile and test and the dependency stuff is cool, as
is the pom that lays out meta about your project. It breaks down,
IMO, when it comes to doing complex things where you need to use
plugins, or string together plugins, etc. I also found it was buggy
and you also have to pin down your plugin dependencies too and be just
as careful about upgrading them as you do your own libraries. In the
end, these were dealbreakers for me.
At any rate, I don't want to start a huge Maven discussion. I'd just
like to see the poms in sync (which I broke) or we go the Lucene Java
route and have ANT generate the poms, since the main thing people are
probably going to want out of Maven is the repository stuff so they
can use it w/ their Maven project.
-Grant
Re: Maven POMs
Posted by Lukáš Vlček <lu...@gmail.com>.
Personally I don't mind that much (Ant vs. Maven) but I think that learning
Lucene or Hadoop would have been easier if the build process was simple. So
my point is: the more the project is complex the less likely it can be
understood by developers willing to conribute (and the less likely it can be
managed by maven - but this is a minor issue).
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know Maven can do a fair bit more, and I do like the dependency
> management aspect. In my own project I tried to maintain a pom.xml
> file. The thing that stopped me from using it 100% is that the Maven
> repo never quite has every dependency I need, so I'd maintain my own
> too. But that wasn't a big deal. Also Ant is obviously a full build
> script language whereas that is not Maven's intent, and at times one
> needs that power. (see my 'build-server' targets for example -- don't
> think this can be done with Maven).
>
> Everyone basically has Ant installed. Nobody really has Maven
> installed already. That does give me pause. At least we are clearly
> going to need to export Ant build files as well. Then we're still
> using both, even if not duplicating much info.
>
> I'm open to it, still, but am still neutral on it.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > The other main reason always has been "if it ain't broke, why fix it?",
> at
> > least in the case of Lucene. Lucene has been on Ant for a long time. It
> > works. It's easy to use. Why change it?
> >
> > On Aug 5, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Lukáš Vlček wrote:
> >
> >> I was always asking myself what is so special about projects like
> Lucene,
> >> Hadoop (and possibly Mahout?) that maven can not be used as a project
> >> management tool for them. I haven't heard an answer until these days
> (...
> >> "these projects are complex" is not an answer for me).
> >>
> >> Lukas
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:05 AM, pi song <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> That depends. If you want to do something very different from the
> default
> >>> model maven provides, it could be very painful sometimes. Maven is more
> >>> like
> >>> a coffee machine that you push a button and it just works. You can't
> >>> configure much.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I have had the chance to use a maven centric build just lately from
> the
> >>>> IntelliJ point of view and found it painless to keep the pom as the
> >>>
> >>> master
> >>>>
> >>>> structure. IntelliJ can even sync back to the pom.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think that using ant from maven would be as useful as
> switching
> >>>> over
> >>>> entirely to maven.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Karl Wettin <ka...@gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I've managed to keep the POMs in sync locally at least up until a
> month
> >>>>> ago. Hopefully it's not too much of a hassle to update them. It was
> >>>>
> >>>> mostly
> >>>>>
> >>>>> trouble with nested deps that needed to be excluded. Also,
> >>>>
> >>>> core/src/examples
> >>>>>
> >>>>> needs to be moved to a new maven module in order to work and that
> will
> >>>>> require touching the ant build.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sorry for my recent inactivity and short communication the last
> weeks!
> >>>>
> >>>> Been
> >>>>>
> >>>>> busy catching the sun, changing country and moving to a new
> apartment.
> >>>>
> >>>> Have
> >>>>>
> >>>>> a whole bunch of halfbaked patches and comments here. Please allow a
> >>>
> >>> few
> >>>>>
> >>>>> days for me to sync with trunk and catch up with discussions on the
> >>>
> >>> fora.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> karl
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 5 aug 2008 kl. 04.06 skrev Sean Owen:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's nice -- how about targets that need more customized scripting?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I suppose we can keep those separate, and connect them to the
> >>>>>> auto-generated build file. At least then build logic is not
> >>>>>> duplicated. Sounds good?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:56 PM, pi song <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You can generate ant build file/intelliJ project file/Eclipse
> project
> >>>>>>> file
> >>>>>>> from Maven poms. One way is to too keep maven as your master so you
> >>>>
> >>>> don't
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> have to maintain both.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't know, I have not found a great solution for this. I don't
> >>>
> >>> use
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Maven myself but am not against learning how to use it
> effectively.
> >>>>>>>> Part of that is sorting out how to keep it in sync with Ant build
> >>>>>>>> scripts. We could delegate all building to Ant. Perhaps that's the
> >>>>>>>> easiest way.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Anyone know enough about Maven to understand best practices? I
> >>>
> >>> assume
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> some does or else we wouldn't be bothering with it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Grant Ingersoll <
> >>>
> >>> gsingers@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So, what's are plan for the Maven poms? How do we intend to keep
> >>>>
> >>>> them
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>> sync such that they are actually useful for those who want to use
> >>>>
> >>>> Maven
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (not
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> me, but others...)?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -Grant
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> ted
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://blog.lukas-vlcek.com/
> >
> > --------------------------
> > Grant Ingersoll
> > http://www.lucidimagination.com
> >
> > Lucene Helpful Hints:
> > http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/BasicsOfPerformance
> > http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/LuceneFAQ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
http://blog.lukas-vlcek.com/
Re: Maven POMs
Posted by Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com>.
I know Maven can do a fair bit more, and I do like the dependency
management aspect. In my own project I tried to maintain a pom.xml
file. The thing that stopped me from using it 100% is that the Maven
repo never quite has every dependency I need, so I'd maintain my own
too. But that wasn't a big deal. Also Ant is obviously a full build
script language whereas that is not Maven's intent, and at times one
needs that power. (see my 'build-server' targets for example -- don't
think this can be done with Maven).
Everyone basically has Ant installed. Nobody really has Maven
installed already. That does give me pause. At least we are clearly
going to need to export Ant build files as well. Then we're still
using both, even if not duplicating much info.
I'm open to it, still, but am still neutral on it.
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
> The other main reason always has been "if it ain't broke, why fix it?", at
> least in the case of Lucene. Lucene has been on Ant for a long time. It
> works. It's easy to use. Why change it?
>
> On Aug 5, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Lukáš Vlček wrote:
>
>> I was always asking myself what is so special about projects like Lucene,
>> Hadoop (and possibly Mahout?) that maven can not be used as a project
>> management tool for them. I haven't heard an answer until these days (...
>> "these projects are complex" is not an answer for me).
>>
>> Lukas
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:05 AM, pi song <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That depends. If you want to do something very different from the default
>>> model maven provides, it could be very painful sometimes. Maven is more
>>> like
>>> a coffee machine that you push a button and it just works. You can't
>>> configure much.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have had the chance to use a maven centric build just lately from the
>>>> IntelliJ point of view and found it painless to keep the pom as the
>>>
>>> master
>>>>
>>>> structure. IntelliJ can even sync back to the pom.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that using ant from maven would be as useful as switching
>>>> over
>>>> entirely to maven.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Karl Wettin <ka...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've managed to keep the POMs in sync locally at least up until a month
>>>>> ago. Hopefully it's not too much of a hassle to update them. It was
>>>>
>>>> mostly
>>>>>
>>>>> trouble with nested deps that needed to be excluded. Also,
>>>>
>>>> core/src/examples
>>>>>
>>>>> needs to be moved to a new maven module in order to work and that will
>>>>> require touching the ant build.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for my recent inactivity and short communication the last weeks!
>>>>
>>>> Been
>>>>>
>>>>> busy catching the sun, changing country and moving to a new apartment.
>>>>
>>>> Have
>>>>>
>>>>> a whole bunch of halfbaked patches and comments here. Please allow a
>>>
>>> few
>>>>>
>>>>> days for me to sync with trunk and catch up with discussions on the
>>>
>>> fora.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> karl
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 5 aug 2008 kl. 04.06 skrev Sean Owen:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's nice -- how about targets that need more customized scripting?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose we can keep those separate, and connect them to the
>>>>>> auto-generated build file. At least then build logic is not
>>>>>> duplicated. Sounds good?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:56 PM, pi song <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can generate ant build file/intelliJ project file/Eclipse project
>>>>>>> file
>>>>>>> from Maven poms. One way is to too keep maven as your master so you
>>>>
>>>> don't
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> have to maintain both.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know, I have not found a great solution for this. I don't
>>>
>>> use
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maven myself but am not against learning how to use it effectively.
>>>>>>>> Part of that is sorting out how to keep it in sync with Ant build
>>>>>>>> scripts. We could delegate all building to Ant. Perhaps that's the
>>>>>>>> easiest way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyone know enough about Maven to understand best practices? I
>>>
>>> assume
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> some does or else we wouldn't be bothering with it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Grant Ingersoll <
>>>
>>> gsingers@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, what's are plan for the Maven poms? How do we intend to keep
>>>>
>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> sync such that they are actually useful for those who want to use
>>>>
>>>> Maven
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> me, but others...)?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Grant
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ted
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://blog.lukas-vlcek.com/
>
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
> Lucene Helpful Hints:
> http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/BasicsOfPerformance
> http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/LuceneFAQ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Maven POMs
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
The other main reason always has been "if it ain't broke, why fix
it?", at least in the case of Lucene. Lucene has been on Ant for a
long time. It works. It's easy to use. Why change it?
On Aug 5, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Lukáš Vlček wrote:
> I was always asking myself what is so special about projects like
> Lucene,
> Hadoop (and possibly Mahout?) that maven can not be used as a project
> management tool for them. I haven't heard an answer until these days
> (...
> "these projects are complex" is not an answer for me).
>
> Lukas
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:05 AM, pi song <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That depends. If you want to do something very different from the
>> default
>> model maven provides, it could be very painful sometimes. Maven is
>> more
>> like
>> a coffee machine that you push a button and it just works. You can't
>> configure much.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have had the chance to use a maven centric build just lately
>>> from the
>>> IntelliJ point of view and found it painless to keep the pom as the
>> master
>>> structure. IntelliJ can even sync back to the pom.
>>>
>>> I don't think that using ant from maven would be as useful as
>>> switching
>>> over
>>> entirely to maven.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Karl Wettin <ka...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've managed to keep the POMs in sync locally at least up until a
>>>> month
>>>> ago. Hopefully it's not too much of a hassle to update them. It was
>>> mostly
>>>> trouble with nested deps that needed to be excluded. Also,
>>> core/src/examples
>>>> needs to be moved to a new maven module in order to work and that
>>>> will
>>>> require touching the ant build.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for my recent inactivity and short communication the last
>>>> weeks!
>>> Been
>>>> busy catching the sun, changing country and moving to a new
>>>> apartment.
>>> Have
>>>> a whole bunch of halfbaked patches and comments here. Please
>>>> allow a
>> few
>>>> days for me to sync with trunk and catch up with discussions on the
>> fora.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> karl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 5 aug 2008 kl. 04.06 skrev Sean Owen:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's nice -- how about targets that need more customized
>>>> scripting?
>>>>> I suppose we can keep those separate, and connect them to the
>>>>> auto-generated build file. At least then build logic is not
>>>>> duplicated. Sounds good?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:56 PM, pi song <pi...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You can generate ant build file/intelliJ project file/Eclipse
>>>>>> project
>>>>>> file
>>>>>> from Maven poms. One way is to too keep maven as your master so
>>>>>> you
>>> don't
>>>>>> have to maintain both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know, I have not found a great solution for this. I don't
>> use
>>>>>>> Maven myself but am not against learning how to use it
>>>>>>> effectively.
>>>>>>> Part of that is sorting out how to keep it in sync with Ant
>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>> scripts. We could delegate all building to Ant. Perhaps that's
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> easiest way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone know enough about Maven to understand best practices? I
>> assume
>>>>>>> some does or else we wouldn't be bothering with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Grant Ingersoll <
>> gsingers@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, what's are plan for the Maven poms? How do we intend to
>>>>>>>> keep
>>> them
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> sync such that they are actually useful for those who want to
>>>>>>>> use
>>> Maven
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> me, but others...)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Grant
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ted
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://blog.lukas-vlcek.com/
--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com
Lucene Helpful Hints:
http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/BasicsOfPerformance
http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/LuceneFAQ
Re: Maven POMs
Posted by Lukáš Vlček <lu...@gmail.com>.
I was always asking myself what is so special about projects like Lucene,
Hadoop (and possibly Mahout?) that maven can not be used as a project
management tool for them. I haven't heard an answer until these days (...
"these projects are complex" is not an answer for me).
Lukas
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:05 AM, pi song <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That depends. If you want to do something very different from the default
> model maven provides, it could be very painful sometimes. Maven is more
> like
> a coffee machine that you push a button and it just works. You can't
> configure much.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have had the chance to use a maven centric build just lately from the
> > IntelliJ point of view and found it painless to keep the pom as the
> master
> > structure. IntelliJ can even sync back to the pom.
> >
> > I don't think that using ant from maven would be as useful as switching
> > over
> > entirely to maven.
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Karl Wettin <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I've managed to keep the POMs in sync locally at least up until a month
> > > ago. Hopefully it's not too much of a hassle to update them. It was
> > mostly
> > > trouble with nested deps that needed to be excluded. Also,
> > core/src/examples
> > > needs to be moved to a new maven module in order to work and that will
> > > require touching the ant build.
> > >
> > > Sorry for my recent inactivity and short communication the last weeks!
> > Been
> > > busy catching the sun, changing country and moving to a new apartment.
> > Have
> > > a whole bunch of halfbaked patches and comments here. Please allow a
> few
> > > days for me to sync with trunk and catch up with discussions on the
> fora.
> > >
> > >
> > > karl
> > >
> > >
> > > 5 aug 2008 kl. 04.06 skrev Sean Owen:
> > >
> > >
> > > That's nice -- how about targets that need more customized scripting?
> > >> I suppose we can keep those separate, and connect them to the
> > >> auto-generated build file. At least then build logic is not
> > >> duplicated. Sounds good?
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:56 PM, pi song <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> You can generate ant build file/intelliJ project file/Eclipse project
> > >>> file
> > >>> from Maven poms. One way is to too keep maven as your master so you
> > don't
> > >>> have to maintain both.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't know, I have not found a great solution for this. I don't
> use
> > >>>> Maven myself but am not against learning how to use it effectively.
> > >>>> Part of that is sorting out how to keep it in sync with Ant build
> > >>>> scripts. We could delegate all building to Ant. Perhaps that's the
> > >>>> easiest way.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Anyone know enough about Maven to understand best practices? I
> assume
> > >>>> some does or else we wouldn't be bothering with it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Grant Ingersoll <
> gsingers@apache.org>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> So, what's are plan for the Maven poms? How do we intend to keep
> > them
> > >>>>> in
> > >>>>> sync such that they are actually useful for those who want to use
> > Maven
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> (not
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> me, but others...)?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -Grant
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ted
> >
>
--
http://blog.lukas-vlcek.com/
Re: Maven POMs
Posted by pi song <pi...@gmail.com>.
That depends. If you want to do something very different from the default
model maven provides, it could be very painful sometimes. Maven is more like
a coffee machine that you push a button and it just works. You can't
configure much.
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have had the chance to use a maven centric build just lately from the
> IntelliJ point of view and found it painless to keep the pom as the master
> structure. IntelliJ can even sync back to the pom.
>
> I don't think that using ant from maven would be as useful as switching
> over
> entirely to maven.
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Karl Wettin <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've managed to keep the POMs in sync locally at least up until a month
> > ago. Hopefully it's not too much of a hassle to update them. It was
> mostly
> > trouble with nested deps that needed to be excluded. Also,
> core/src/examples
> > needs to be moved to a new maven module in order to work and that will
> > require touching the ant build.
> >
> > Sorry for my recent inactivity and short communication the last weeks!
> Been
> > busy catching the sun, changing country and moving to a new apartment.
> Have
> > a whole bunch of halfbaked patches and comments here. Please allow a few
> > days for me to sync with trunk and catch up with discussions on the fora.
> >
> >
> > karl
> >
> >
> > 5 aug 2008 kl. 04.06 skrev Sean Owen:
> >
> >
> > That's nice -- how about targets that need more customized scripting?
> >> I suppose we can keep those separate, and connect them to the
> >> auto-generated build file. At least then build logic is not
> >> duplicated. Sounds good?
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:56 PM, pi song <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> You can generate ant build file/intelliJ project file/Eclipse project
> >>> file
> >>> from Maven poms. One way is to too keep maven as your master so you
> don't
> >>> have to maintain both.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I don't know, I have not found a great solution for this. I don't use
> >>>> Maven myself but am not against learning how to use it effectively.
> >>>> Part of that is sorting out how to keep it in sync with Ant build
> >>>> scripts. We could delegate all building to Ant. Perhaps that's the
> >>>> easiest way.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyone know enough about Maven to understand best practices? I assume
> >>>> some does or else we wouldn't be bothering with it.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> So, what's are plan for the Maven poms? How do we intend to keep
> them
> >>>>> in
> >>>>> sync such that they are actually useful for those who want to use
> Maven
> >>>>>
> >>>> (not
> >>>>
> >>>>> me, but others...)?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Grant
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
>
>
> --
> ted
>
Re: Maven POMs
Posted by Karl Wettin <ka...@gmail.com>.
+1, although I want to use the Maven fs structure for as long as
possible. I think Maven is a great tool that saves me a lot of time
setting up my IDE when working in patches.
5 aug 2008 kl. 15.32 skrev Grant Ingersoll:
> For the record, I'm not proposing to move to Maven. I just want to
> make sure that those who want to use it are happy. As far as I am
> concerned, the Ant build is the authoritative build until we all
> decide we don't want it to be.
>
>
> On Aug 5, 2008, at 9:05 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
>
>> Cool, I have some build targets that are a bit trickier, but, could
>> simply retain them in an auxilliary Ant build file as needed.
>>
>> I think the core of my build is already in the main build.xml file.
>> So
>> if we're porting to Maven, erm, would someone who knows it well care
>> to step up and do it? then I can rationalize what remains of my build
>> file versus the Maven file and take whatever steps I need to to
>> finish
>> my part.
>>
>> I am open to Maven but neutral on it versus Ant. I'll go with the
>> consensus.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I have had the chance to use a maven centric build just lately
>>> from the
>>> IntelliJ point of view and found it painless to keep the pom as
>>> the master
>>> structure. IntelliJ can even sync back to the pom.
>>>
>>> I don't think that using ant from maven would be as useful as
>>> switching over
>>> entirely to maven.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Karl Wettin
>>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've managed to keep the POMs in sync locally at least up until a
>>>> month
>>>> ago. Hopefully it's not too much of a hassle to update them. It
>>>> was mostly
>>>> trouble with nested deps that needed to be excluded. Also, core/
>>>> src/examples
>>>> needs to be moved to a new maven module in order to work and that
>>>> will
>>>> require touching the ant build.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for my recent inactivity and short communication the last
>>>> weeks! Been
>>>> busy catching the sun, changing country and moving to a new
>>>> apartment. Have
>>>> a whole bunch of halfbaked patches and comments here. Please
>>>> allow a few
>>>> days for me to sync with trunk and catch up with discussions on
>>>> the fora.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> karl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 5 aug 2008 kl. 04.06 skrev Sean Owen:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's nice -- how about targets that need more customized
>>>> scripting?
>>>>> I suppose we can keep those separate, and connect them to the
>>>>> auto-generated build file. At least then build logic is not
>>>>> duplicated. Sounds good?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:56 PM, pi song <pi...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You can generate ant build file/intelliJ project file/Eclipse
>>>>>> project
>>>>>> file
>>>>>> from Maven poms. One way is to too keep maven as your master so
>>>>>> you don't
>>>>>> have to maintain both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know, I have not found a great solution for this. I
>>>>>> don't use
>>>>>>> Maven myself but am not against learning how to use it
>>>>>>> effectively.
>>>>>>> Part of that is sorting out how to keep it in sync with Ant
>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>> scripts. We could delegate all building to Ant. Perhaps that's
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> easiest way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone know enough about Maven to understand best practices? I
>>>>>>> assume
>>>>>>> some does or else we wouldn't be bothering with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, what's are plan for the Maven poms? How do we intend to
>>>>>>>> keep them
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> sync such that they are actually useful for those who want to
>>>>>>>> use Maven
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> me, but others...)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Grant
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ted
>>>
Re: Maven POMs
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
For the record, I'm not proposing to move to Maven. I just want to
make sure that those who want to use it are happy. As far as I am
concerned, the Ant build is the authoritative build until we all
decide we don't want it to be.
On Aug 5, 2008, at 9:05 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
> Cool, I have some build targets that are a bit trickier, but, could
> simply retain them in an auxilliary Ant build file as needed.
>
> I think the core of my build is already in the main build.xml file. So
> if we're porting to Maven, erm, would someone who knows it well care
> to step up and do it? then I can rationalize what remains of my build
> file versus the Maven file and take whatever steps I need to to finish
> my part.
>
> I am open to Maven but neutral on it versus Ant. I'll go with the
> consensus.
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I have had the chance to use a maven centric build just lately from
>> the
>> IntelliJ point of view and found it painless to keep the pom as the
>> master
>> structure. IntelliJ can even sync back to the pom.
>>
>> I don't think that using ant from maven would be as useful as
>> switching over
>> entirely to maven.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Karl Wettin <ka...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've managed to keep the POMs in sync locally at least up until a
>>> month
>>> ago. Hopefully it's not too much of a hassle to update them. It
>>> was mostly
>>> trouble with nested deps that needed to be excluded. Also, core/
>>> src/examples
>>> needs to be moved to a new maven module in order to work and that
>>> will
>>> require touching the ant build.
>>>
>>> Sorry for my recent inactivity and short communication the last
>>> weeks! Been
>>> busy catching the sun, changing country and moving to a new
>>> apartment. Have
>>> a whole bunch of halfbaked patches and comments here. Please allow
>>> a few
>>> days for me to sync with trunk and catch up with discussions on
>>> the fora.
>>>
>>>
>>> karl
>>>
>>>
>>> 5 aug 2008 kl. 04.06 skrev Sean Owen:
>>>
>>>
>>> That's nice -- how about targets that need more customized
>>> scripting?
>>>> I suppose we can keep those separate, and connect them to the
>>>> auto-generated build file. At least then build logic is not
>>>> duplicated. Sounds good?
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:56 PM, pi song <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You can generate ant build file/intelliJ project file/Eclipse
>>>>> project
>>>>> file
>>>>> from Maven poms. One way is to too keep maven as your master so
>>>>> you don't
>>>>> have to maintain both.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know, I have not found a great solution for this. I
>>>>> don't use
>>>>>> Maven myself but am not against learning how to use it
>>>>>> effectively.
>>>>>> Part of that is sorting out how to keep it in sync with Ant build
>>>>>> scripts. We could delegate all building to Ant. Perhaps that's
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> easiest way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone know enough about Maven to understand best practices? I
>>>>>> assume
>>>>>> some does or else we wouldn't be bothering with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, what's are plan for the Maven poms? How do we intend to
>>>>>>> keep them
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> sync such that they are actually useful for those who want to
>>>>>>> use Maven
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> (not
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> me, but others...)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Grant
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ted
>>
Re: Maven POMs
Posted by Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com>.
Cool, I have some build targets that are a bit trickier, but, could
simply retain them in an auxilliary Ant build file as needed.
I think the core of my build is already in the main build.xml file. So
if we're porting to Maven, erm, would someone who knows it well care
to step up and do it? then I can rationalize what remains of my build
file versus the Maven file and take whatever steps I need to to finish
my part.
I am open to Maven but neutral on it versus Ant. I'll go with the consensus.
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have had the chance to use a maven centric build just lately from the
> IntelliJ point of view and found it painless to keep the pom as the master
> structure. IntelliJ can even sync back to the pom.
>
> I don't think that using ant from maven would be as useful as switching over
> entirely to maven.
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Karl Wettin <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've managed to keep the POMs in sync locally at least up until a month
>> ago. Hopefully it's not too much of a hassle to update them. It was mostly
>> trouble with nested deps that needed to be excluded. Also, core/src/examples
>> needs to be moved to a new maven module in order to work and that will
>> require touching the ant build.
>>
>> Sorry for my recent inactivity and short communication the last weeks! Been
>> busy catching the sun, changing country and moving to a new apartment. Have
>> a whole bunch of halfbaked patches and comments here. Please allow a few
>> days for me to sync with trunk and catch up with discussions on the fora.
>>
>>
>> karl
>>
>>
>> 5 aug 2008 kl. 04.06 skrev Sean Owen:
>>
>>
>> That's nice -- how about targets that need more customized scripting?
>>> I suppose we can keep those separate, and connect them to the
>>> auto-generated build file. At least then build logic is not
>>> duplicated. Sounds good?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:56 PM, pi song <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You can generate ant build file/intelliJ project file/Eclipse project
>>>> file
>>>> from Maven poms. One way is to too keep maven as your master so you don't
>>>> have to maintain both.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't know, I have not found a great solution for this. I don't use
>>>>> Maven myself but am not against learning how to use it effectively.
>>>>> Part of that is sorting out how to keep it in sync with Ant build
>>>>> scripts. We could delegate all building to Ant. Perhaps that's the
>>>>> easiest way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone know enough about Maven to understand best practices? I assume
>>>>> some does or else we wouldn't be bothering with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So, what's are plan for the Maven poms? How do we intend to keep them
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> sync such that they are actually useful for those who want to use Maven
>>>>>>
>>>>> (not
>>>>>
>>>>>> me, but others...)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Grant
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ted
>
Re: Maven POMs
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
I have had the chance to use a maven centric build just lately from the
IntelliJ point of view and found it painless to keep the pom as the master
structure. IntelliJ can even sync back to the pom.
I don't think that using ant from maven would be as useful as switching over
entirely to maven.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Karl Wettin <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've managed to keep the POMs in sync locally at least up until a month
> ago. Hopefully it's not too much of a hassle to update them. It was mostly
> trouble with nested deps that needed to be excluded. Also, core/src/examples
> needs to be moved to a new maven module in order to work and that will
> require touching the ant build.
>
> Sorry for my recent inactivity and short communication the last weeks! Been
> busy catching the sun, changing country and moving to a new apartment. Have
> a whole bunch of halfbaked patches and comments here. Please allow a few
> days for me to sync with trunk and catch up with discussions on the fora.
>
>
> karl
>
>
> 5 aug 2008 kl. 04.06 skrev Sean Owen:
>
>
> That's nice -- how about targets that need more customized scripting?
>> I suppose we can keep those separate, and connect them to the
>> auto-generated build file. At least then build logic is not
>> duplicated. Sounds good?
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:56 PM, pi song <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You can generate ant build file/intelliJ project file/Eclipse project
>>> file
>>> from Maven poms. One way is to too keep maven as your master so you don't
>>> have to maintain both.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't know, I have not found a great solution for this. I don't use
>>>> Maven myself but am not against learning how to use it effectively.
>>>> Part of that is sorting out how to keep it in sync with Ant build
>>>> scripts. We could delegate all building to Ant. Perhaps that's the
>>>> easiest way.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone know enough about Maven to understand best practices? I assume
>>>> some does or else we wouldn't be bothering with it.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, what's are plan for the Maven poms? How do we intend to keep them
>>>>> in
>>>>> sync such that they are actually useful for those who want to use Maven
>>>>>
>>>> (not
>>>>
>>>>> me, but others...)?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Grant
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
--
ted
Re: Maven POMs
Posted by Karl Wettin <ka...@gmail.com>.
I've managed to keep the POMs in sync locally at least up until a
month ago. Hopefully it's not too much of a hassle to update them. It
was mostly trouble with nested deps that needed to be excluded. Also,
core/src/examples needs to be moved to a new maven module in order to
work and that will require touching the ant build.
Sorry for my recent inactivity and short communication the last weeks!
Been busy catching the sun, changing country and moving to a new
apartment. Have a whole bunch of halfbaked patches and comments here.
Please allow a few days for me to sync with trunk and catch up with
discussions on the fora.
karl
5 aug 2008 kl. 04.06 skrev Sean Owen:
> That's nice -- how about targets that need more customized scripting?
> I suppose we can keep those separate, and connect them to the
> auto-generated build file. At least then build logic is not
> duplicated. Sounds good?
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:56 PM, pi song <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You can generate ant build file/intelliJ project file/Eclipse
>> project file
>> from Maven poms. One way is to too keep maven as your master so you
>> don't
>> have to maintain both.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know, I have not found a great solution for this. I don't
>>> use
>>> Maven myself but am not against learning how to use it effectively.
>>> Part of that is sorting out how to keep it in sync with Ant build
>>> scripts. We could delegate all building to Ant. Perhaps that's the
>>> easiest way.
>>>
>>> Anyone know enough about Maven to understand best practices? I
>>> assume
>>> some does or else we wouldn't be bothering with it.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Grant Ingersoll
>>> <gs...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> So, what's are plan for the Maven poms? How do we intend to keep
>>>> them in
>>>> sync such that they are actually useful for those who want to use
>>>> Maven
>>> (not
>>>> me, but others...)?
>>>>
>>>> -Grant
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Maven POMs
Posted by Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com>.
That's nice -- how about targets that need more customized scripting?
I suppose we can keep those separate, and connect them to the
auto-generated build file. At least then build logic is not
duplicated. Sounds good?
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:56 PM, pi song <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can generate ant build file/intelliJ project file/Eclipse project file
> from Maven poms. One way is to too keep maven as your master so you don't
> have to maintain both.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't know, I have not found a great solution for this. I don't use
>> Maven myself but am not against learning how to use it effectively.
>> Part of that is sorting out how to keep it in sync with Ant build
>> scripts. We could delegate all building to Ant. Perhaps that's the
>> easiest way.
>>
>> Anyone know enough about Maven to understand best practices? I assume
>> some does or else we wouldn't be bothering with it.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > So, what's are plan for the Maven poms? How do we intend to keep them in
>> > sync such that they are actually useful for those who want to use Maven
>> (not
>> > me, but others...)?
>> >
>> > -Grant
>> >
>>
>
Re: Maven POMs
Posted by pi song <pi...@gmail.com>.
You can generate ant build file/intelliJ project file/Eclipse project file
from Maven poms. One way is to too keep maven as your master so you don't
have to maintain both.
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know, I have not found a great solution for this. I don't use
> Maven myself but am not against learning how to use it effectively.
> Part of that is sorting out how to keep it in sync with Ant build
> scripts. We could delegate all building to Ant. Perhaps that's the
> easiest way.
>
> Anyone know enough about Maven to understand best practices? I assume
> some does or else we wouldn't be bothering with it.
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > So, what's are plan for the Maven poms? How do we intend to keep them in
> > sync such that they are actually useful for those who want to use Maven
> (not
> > me, but others...)?
> >
> > -Grant
> >
>
Re: Maven POMs
Posted by Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com>.
I don't know, I have not found a great solution for this. I don't use
Maven myself but am not against learning how to use it effectively.
Part of that is sorting out how to keep it in sync with Ant build
scripts. We could delegate all building to Ant. Perhaps that's the
easiest way.
Anyone know enough about Maven to understand best practices? I assume
some does or else we wouldn't be bothering with it.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
> So, what's are plan for the Maven poms? How do we intend to keep them in
> sync such that they are actually useful for those who want to use Maven (not
> me, but others...)?
>
> -Grant
>