RE: need clearification with inplace development

Hussayn Dabbous wrote:

>there seems to be a bit of confusion and much of broken functionality
>with the inplace development:

Some time ago, as I was trying to simplify the build scripts, I found the inplace development broken.
Because this part of maven.xml wasn't touched a long time, I assumed that no one is really using this option.
So I removed the scarab:inplace goal (but obviously forgot to update the docs).

What would be the advantages of inplace-development?

>     BTW ... What is about maven-2 ?

I have played a bit with maven2 and I think it would be a complete rewrite of the current maven build.

Right now we have already to support two different build systems (maven and ant). That's odd.
Especially because you only get 100% of the build-functionality, if you use both.
With maven2 we would have to support three build systems, at least in the transition phase. That's just ridiculous.

After having a lot of trouble with maven, when upgrading torque and building the Windows-Installer, I decided to move most of the build-functionality out of maven-goals into ant-targets and to call this targets from inside maven.xml.
My goal was, to remove the redundancies in the two build scripts, while making it possible, to use all of the build-functionality from either build-system.

My long-term-goal is to use one build-system exclusively - at least from the user-interface-perspective ... and to get rid of maven1.
We could use ant together with the maven2-plugin for ant, to keep some of the nicer features of maven(like dependency-management and maven:site).

What do you think?

Ronny