You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cayenne.apache.org by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> on 2008/11/04 18:41:03 UTC

Who's using CayenneModelerMojo?

Just noticed that maven-cayenne-plugin has a Modeler dependency. So a  
simple cgen run gets a bunch of unneeded jars to the Maven repo. Of  
course when I removed it and tried to recompile, I stumbled upon  
CayenneModelerMojo...

So, why would anybody want to start CayenneModeler from Maven? What is  
the use case that makes it preferable to the normal way of doing it?

Andrus

Re: Who's using CayenneModelerMojo?

Posted by Kevin Menard <ni...@gmail.com>.
Thanks.  I was at RubyConf last week, so I was out of the loop a bit.
Catching up on things now.  I'll give this a go later and verify it
works.

-- 
Kevin



On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
> Done, so now it is
>
>   mvn cayenne-modeler:run
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
>> Cool. I guess I still can't get myself into that Maven-centric mindset,
>> regardless of the fact that almost all my projects are Maven-based these
>> days. The plugin still seems geared towards Cayenne developers (vs. end
>> users), but I don't see a problem if we have it around. My suggestion then
>> would be to place it in a separate plugin though, so that cgen, et al. users
>> are not required to pull the long tail of extras.
>>
>> I didn't mind (or rather notice) all the extra artifacts downloaded with
>> Cayenne before, but now I am setting up an internal company Maven repo,
>> which I'd like to stay as tight as possible. So that's a good opportunity to
>> clean things up in the poms. I guess I may give it a shot, splitting it in a
>> separate plugin. Should be pretty trivial anyways.
>>
>> (BTW, another unneeded dependency that I noticed is asm lib, which should
>> use "provided" scope.)
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 5, 2008, at 2:32 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
>>
>>> I added it because I found it easier to type:
>>>
>>> $ mvn cayenne:modeler
>>>
>>> than to download the modeler, install it into some location, write
>>> some script to activate it from the CLI, add the script to the PATH,
>>> and then run the script.
>>>
>>> The thinking was inline with how the jetty plugin works in providing a
>>> complete development environment.  I did overlook that it would pull
>>> all those JARs in, but I'm also not terribly concerned by it.  I think
>>> when you use maven you accept that a lot of junk you don't use
>>> directly is going to be pulled in, for better or worse.
>>>
>>> Having said that, I know at least Ari had some problems with the mojo
>>> that I haven't been able to reproduce.  It's something I'm aiming to
>>> fix, but am not really sure where to start.  My guess is that it's not
>>> essential and could go away, although my vote is for it to not.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Just noticed that maven-cayenne-plugin has a Modeler dependency. So a
>>>> simple
>>>> cgen run gets a bunch of unneeded jars to the Maven repo. Of course when
>>>> I
>>>> removed it and tried to recompile, I stumbled upon CayenneModelerMojo...
>>>>
>>>> So, why would anybody want to start CayenneModeler from Maven? What is
>>>> the
>>>> use case that makes it preferable to the normal way of doing it?
>>>>
>>>> Andrus
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: Who's using CayenneModelerMojo?

Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
Done, so now it is

    mvn cayenne-modeler:run

Andrus


On Nov 5, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:

> Cool. I guess I still can't get myself into that Maven-centric  
> mindset, regardless of the fact that almost all my projects are  
> Maven-based these days. The plugin still seems geared towards  
> Cayenne developers (vs. end users), but I don't see a problem if we  
> have it around. My suggestion then would be to place it in a  
> separate plugin though, so that cgen, et al. users are not required  
> to pull the long tail of extras.
>
> I didn't mind (or rather notice) all the extra artifacts downloaded  
> with Cayenne before, but now I am setting up an internal company  
> Maven repo, which I'd like to stay as tight as possible. So that's a  
> good opportunity to clean things up in the poms. I guess I may give  
> it a shot, splitting it in a separate plugin. Should be pretty  
> trivial anyways.
>
> (BTW, another unneeded dependency that I noticed is asm lib, which  
> should use "provided" scope.)
>
> Andrus
>
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2008, at 2:32 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
>
>> I added it because I found it easier to type:
>>
>> $ mvn cayenne:modeler
>>
>> than to download the modeler, install it into some location, write
>> some script to activate it from the CLI, add the script to the PATH,
>> and then run the script.
>>
>> The thinking was inline with how the jetty plugin works in  
>> providing a
>> complete development environment.  I did overlook that it would pull
>> all those JARs in, but I'm also not terribly concerned by it.  I  
>> think
>> when you use maven you accept that a lot of junk you don't use
>> directly is going to be pulled in, for better or worse.
>>
>> Having said that, I know at least Ari had some problems with the mojo
>> that I haven't been able to reproduce.  It's something I'm aiming to
>> fix, but am not really sure where to start.  My guess is that it's  
>> not
>> essential and could go away, although my vote is for it to not.
>>
>> -- 
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Andrus Adamchik <andrus@objectstyle.org 
>> > wrote:
>>> Just noticed that maven-cayenne-plugin has a Modeler dependency.  
>>> So a simple
>>> cgen run gets a bunch of unneeded jars to the Maven repo. Of  
>>> course when I
>>> removed it and tried to recompile, I stumbled upon  
>>> CayenneModelerMojo...
>>>
>>> So, why would anybody want to start CayenneModeler from Maven?  
>>> What is the
>>> use case that makes it preferable to the normal way of doing it?
>>>
>>> Andrus
>>>
>>
>
>


Re: Who's using CayenneModelerMojo?

Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
Cool. I guess I still can't get myself into that Maven-centric  
mindset, regardless of the fact that almost all my projects are Maven- 
based these days. The plugin still seems geared towards Cayenne  
developers (vs. end users), but I don't see a problem if we have it  
around. My suggestion then would be to place it in a separate plugin  
though, so that cgen, et al. users are not required to pull the long  
tail of extras.

I didn't mind (or rather notice) all the extra artifacts downloaded  
with Cayenne before, but now I am setting up an internal company Maven  
repo, which I'd like to stay as tight as possible. So that's a good  
opportunity to clean things up in the poms. I guess I may give it a  
shot, splitting it in a separate plugin. Should be pretty trivial  
anyways.

(BTW, another unneeded dependency that I noticed is asm lib, which  
should use "provided" scope.)

Andrus



On Nov 5, 2008, at 2:32 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:

> I added it because I found it easier to type:
>
> $ mvn cayenne:modeler
>
> than to download the modeler, install it into some location, write
> some script to activate it from the CLI, add the script to the PATH,
> and then run the script.
>
> The thinking was inline with how the jetty plugin works in providing a
> complete development environment.  I did overlook that it would pull
> all those JARs in, but I'm also not terribly concerned by it.  I think
> when you use maven you accept that a lot of junk you don't use
> directly is going to be pulled in, for better or worse.
>
> Having said that, I know at least Ari had some problems with the mojo
> that I haven't been able to reproduce.  It's something I'm aiming to
> fix, but am not really sure where to start.  My guess is that it's not
> essential and could go away, although my vote is for it to not.
>
> -- 
> Kevin
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Andrus Adamchik <andrus@objectstyle.org 
> > wrote:
>> Just noticed that maven-cayenne-plugin has a Modeler dependency. So  
>> a simple
>> cgen run gets a bunch of unneeded jars to the Maven repo. Of course  
>> when I
>> removed it and tried to recompile, I stumbled upon  
>> CayenneModelerMojo...
>>
>> So, why would anybody want to start CayenneModeler from Maven? What  
>> is the
>> use case that makes it preferable to the normal way of doing it?
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>


Re: Who's using CayenneModelerMojo?

Posted by Kevin Menard <ni...@gmail.com>.
I added it because I found it easier to type:

$ mvn cayenne:modeler

than to download the modeler, install it into some location, write
some script to activate it from the CLI, add the script to the PATH,
and then run the script.

The thinking was inline with how the jetty plugin works in providing a
complete development environment.  I did overlook that it would pull
all those JARs in, but I'm also not terribly concerned by it.  I think
when you use maven you accept that a lot of junk you don't use
directly is going to be pulled in, for better or worse.

Having said that, I know at least Ari had some problems with the mojo
that I haven't been able to reproduce.  It's something I'm aiming to
fix, but am not really sure where to start.  My guess is that it's not
essential and could go away, although my vote is for it to not.

-- 
Kevin



On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
> Just noticed that maven-cayenne-plugin has a Modeler dependency. So a simple
> cgen run gets a bunch of unneeded jars to the Maven repo. Of course when I
> removed it and tried to recompile, I stumbled upon CayenneModelerMojo...
>
> So, why would anybody want to start CayenneModeler from Maven? What is the
> use case that makes it preferable to the normal way of doing it?
>
> Andrus
>