james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bernd Fondermann" <bernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Two builds [was: Re: Embedding James in a Java application]
Date Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:18:33 GMT
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Norman Maurer <norman@apache.org> wrote:
>> Am Samstag, den 14.06.2008, 14:16 +0200 schrieb Stefano Bagnara:
>>> I'm moving to dev because we are OT in the user list.
>>> Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
>>> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org>
>>> >> Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
>>> >>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org>
>>> >>>> nodje ha scritto:
>>> >>>>> hey thanks
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I haven't open the documentation yet but thanks to Maven
I  have been
>>> >>>>> able
>>> >>>>> to compile the whole stuff.
>>> >>>>> spring-integration wouldn't compile on it's own though.
Some missing
>>> >>>>> dependencies - or repository issue.
>>> >>>> I committed fix to poms yesterday, please try again with the
>>> >>>> version.
>>> >>> We are going long ways to maintain two build tools. I'd suggest
>>> >>> better point our users to the ant build and not turn people away
>>> >>> because they try to use maven and fail.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>  Bernd
>>> >> If you look at the thread I already suggested him to use ANT but he
>>> >> to use maven anyway. So I preferred to take the opportunity to fix the
>>> >> build (we needed this action anyway for our website build).
>>> >>
>>> >> In my answer I never used the maven word and here is a quote from what
>>> >> suggested him:
>>> >>> If you checkout the whole sources for trunk and run "ant" on the
>>> >>> it will build also the spring-deployment packages.
>>> >> Stefano
>>> >
>>> > Yes, I know. I can read ;-)
>>> > The point is: Having two build tools means, changing one build
>>> > probably breaks the other one. We did not yet agree to maintain both
>>> > (except for using maven for docs). The nightly build for example does
>>> > not check the maven build. But having a broken build is bad for those
>>> > innocent folks trying to use it.
>>> I committed myself to keep updating the maven build and an almost
>>> complete maven configuration is needed if you want to create maven
>>> reports for the website.
>>> But I'll stop doing this as no one asked me this. If needed the PMC will
>>> find consensus and will ask me to work on that.
>> No please not stop ....
> +1


This was not meant as a criticism towards maintaining a maven build,
or an ant build or their maintainers.
I thought it was worth pointing out that _two_ builds means doubled work.

Since there is nobody else than me sceptical abouth the remote
repository approach, it doesn't make sense insisting on it.
I will try to find a solution for myself which works on my machines.

I'd rather not stand on peoples feet here and am open to discuss to
completely switch over to maven.
It's better to have only one maven build than two concurrent builds.


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

View raw message