Re: V2.x not usable next to V1.x

Hi Brad.

This whole thing is frustrating me... sorry to take it out on your 
reply....

Yes, you offered help. In fact, I *did* use your pom. At least for a 
while. The reality is that your pom was enough to complete maybe 5% of 
the problem, and the *wrong* 5%. Your help was all about changing from 
an ant build to a mvn build, and that was what I was trying to avoid 
(even if the code was not moving locations). The other 95% is all about 
*deploying* to maven-central, which is a massive procedure.... (not 
really POM related).

But, one of the pre-conditions I made was that I was not going to 
convert the 1.1.x branch to maven (which was when you were offering 
help). I think that was fair.

I said I had *zero* experience with maven... (and still essentially have 
none, I have never built a project with maven.... *never*).

The 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 releases to maven are *fine*.

The procedure for building a maven bundle is *fine*, Zero problems.

The reality is that it was not the right time for me to learn a whole 
dependency environment while trying to get 2.x out too. The mistakes in 
doing that outweigh the benefits. I can't possibly be the right person 
to do it. Apart from the fact that converting JDOM to a maven build 
process is completely unnecessary, the ant build is simple and works.

The only complaint people actually have is the lack of a '2' character 
on the JDOM 2.x artifactID. Everything else is fine.

Further, none of your assistance would have prevented the issue at hand, 
the mis-named artifactID... which is completely unrelated to anything 
you have done.


I sent e-mails to the list notifying everyone of the intention to name 
the jdom 2.0.0 artifact 'jdom' *before* I released it and I asked for 
feedback.

So, this is the fault of everyone except me ;-) *you* and everyone else 
with maven experience should have picked up that 'very bad idea'.

While I am the only (active) maintainer of JDOM I see zero point in 
converting it to maven. I do not know the day-to-day procedures, I see 
no value in learning them, I don't need them for (paid) work, and I see 
no 'fun' value in it (in fact, the more I deal with it the more un-fun 
it becomes), etc. I have learned more than enough to get a *good* (maybe 
not great) deployment process going.




So, getting back on track....

I am willing to consider solutions to the missing '2' on the 
artifactID... The solution is probably much simpler than dealing with 
this sort of mail-thread.

Now that I am home (and have the right encryption keys available to 
try), I will see if I can put in a jdom2 artifact with a jdom jar.

Otherwise I will investigate some other alternatives. It would be useful

But I am getting more and more stubborn about getting grief about maven 
being 'easy', etc.



Rolf





On 18/05/2012 4:28 PM, Brad Cox wrote:
> As I recall, you turned down my offer to help with the end of the
> problem I could help with (replicating your ant build process with *NO*
> source changes) and never used the pom I sent you for the first step,
> the compile. I told you then I couldn't help with the deploy process
> having never been that far.
>
> Seems to me these are consequences of a decision to buck the conventions
> and jump to right to the deep end (deployment) just to maintain a legacy
> build system regardless the costs. These are the costs. Its not maven
> that dictates the artifact name must match the jar name. That comes from
> ant not maven. For all I know there's a plugin that can remap that even
> now but I'll defer to the experts for that.
>

_______________________________________________
To control your jdom-interest membership:
http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/[email protected]