james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Re: Creeping mavenization of JAMES
Date Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:50:38 GMT
Noel J. Bergman ha scritto:
> As noted in a reply to the commit that broke the build:
> 
>> Added maven2 poms for every module and updated the phoenix-deployment
>> module to work in multimodule project
> 
> This means two build systems to maintain.  Because of this, Stefano didn't
> notice over a span of a couple of days that he had broken the server build.
> I am giving serious consideration to voting against this change, and feel
> that we should make the effort to purge all mavenization from JAMES as soon
> as possible, and take advantage of the improvements in Ant, as Robert is
> already doing.
> 
> 	--- Noel

I didn't recognize I broke the build simply because in svn you really 
delete the folder only when you commit. Before I marked the folder as 
moved but it was on my filesystem (because of how svn works) and I 
didn't notice this: I wouldn't have noticed this even without m2, 
unfortunately (should we remove subversion too? ;-) ). I'M SORRY anyway: 
normal people can do mistakes (I'm not God).

As you noticed I think there was one line in build.xml to be removed and 
everything worked again (the line was in the error thrown by ant, so it 
has been pretty easy): I would expect more collaboration and less 
complaints by a respected ASF member and so experienced committer like 
you, the next time ;-)

If someone take the time to create out website with ant I have no 
problem in using ant: I did the maven2 based website many months ago 
(not yesterday, but on may 2006, r424391), so it is weird to see you 
wanting to veto changes today. I know both maven2 and ant, both have 
their merits.

If you want to remove the pom stuff, just do it: you will not receive 
vetoes by me (just remember that we have poms in all of james products, 
one of them being m2-only now and this is how our website has been built 
in the last year). I'm happy anyway I spent the time to make the 
multimodule build to work and create the website (including the 
aggregated javadocs/jxr). This helped me comparing what is needed to do 
something similar with ant and with maven2. I admit I expected some more 
thank you and some less complaints, but at least I'm happy with what I 
learned, so, no problem.

If you are interested in this (and I bet you are not, because you seems 
to be so "biased" on this topic), after this comparison I still think 
that maven2 is the way to go, even if it is not without problems: 1/3rd 
of the xml needed by the m2 resources and it also build the websites 
with a lot of reports, and it could also easily be configured to 
automatically release and sign our deployments (if it was our main build 
system).

If I had to vote about using a single build system for james server and 
if +1 means I have to contribute to make it happen, I would vote +1 for 
maven2 only build, +0 for ant simply because I'm not interested in 
learning more of an "old generation" (IMHO, of course) build system.

Stefano


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org


Mime
View raw message