You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to server-dev@james.apache.org by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> on 2008/04/01 01:14:09 UTC
Re: [jSPF] poms, copyright, license, again... (Was: [VOTE] jSPF-0.9.6)
Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
>> why not just use an ant script for offline builds?
>
> +1
>
> the website generation aspect excluded, I don't get it why removing
> maven is not already discussed as an obvious option here.
> if we find that maven causes us non-technical problems - and this
> thread is definitively proving this - , we are free to not use it.
> I downloaded the 0.9.5er source distribution today and it does not
> build with ant, only maven. it downloads a ridiculous large number of
> jars for very little effect. I remember that I +1'ed maven usage for
> building the site. but (hereby also answering a prev question asked on
> this thread) the rest should work with ant and offline, please. :-)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bernd
The main build tool for jSPF has always been maven. The build.xml that
was there has been requested by someone and it was created automatically
by maven. I was against it because I know the ant plugin for maven was
not so good and the resulting build.xml was to be maintained (and as you
see it doesn't work). BTW it was intended as a facility for people not
having maven and not as *the* build tool for jSPF. I just updated the
dependency versions inside that file so it should work now. Having to
update the build.xml manually each time we change the pom.xml is a PITA
(we're going to forget this at each release): any better option?
Other products we ships use ant as their build tool, but jSPF always
used maven, since the first checkin. IIRC we didn't had the vote you are
referring about using maven for the website build and ant for the source
build for jSPF.
Here is my -0 for moving to ant as the main build tool for jSPF. This
move would simply increase the complexity of managing jSPF lifecycle for me.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
RE: [jSPF] poms, copyright, license, again... (Was: [VOTE]jSPF-0.9.6)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> I don't get it why removing maven is not already discussed as an obvious
option here.
+1
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [jSPF] poms, copyright, license, again... (Was: [VOTE]
jSPF-0.9.6)
Posted by Norman Maurer <no...@apache.org>.
Am Dienstag, den 01.04.2008, 01:14 +0200 schrieb Stefano Bagnara:
> Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
> >> why not just use an ant script for offline builds?
> >
> > +1
> >
> > the website generation aspect excluded, I don't get it why removing
> > maven is not already discussed as an obvious option here.
> > if we find that maven causes us non-technical problems - and this
> > thread is definitively proving this - , we are free to not use it.
> > I downloaded the 0.9.5er source distribution today and it does not
> > build with ant, only maven. it downloads a ridiculous large number of
> > jars for very little effect. I remember that I +1'ed maven usage for
> > building the site. but (hereby also answering a prev question asked on
> > this thread) the rest should work with ant and offline, please. :-)
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bernd
>
> The main build tool for jSPF has always been maven. The build.xml that
> was there has been requested by someone and it was created automatically
> by maven. I was against it because I know the ant plugin for maven was
> not so good and the resulting build.xml was to be maintained (and as you
> see it doesn't work). BTW it was intended as a facility for people not
> having maven and not as *the* build tool for jSPF. I just updated the
> dependency versions inside that file so it should work now. Having to
> update the build.xml manually each time we change the pom.xml is a PITA
> (we're going to forget this at each release): any better option?
>
> Other products we ships use ant as their build tool, but jSPF always
> used maven, since the first checkin. IIRC we didn't had the vote you are
> referring about using maven for the website build and ant for the source
> build for jSPF.
>
> Here is my -0 for moving to ant as the main build tool for jSPF. This
> move would simply increase the complexity of managing jSPF lifecycle for me.
>
> Stefano
>
-0 from me too...
Cheers
Norman
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org