Re: need clearification with inplace development

Völker Ronny schrieb:
> 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?
> 

the advantage would be, that one could modify the velocity files on the fly and see the results
directly in the browser. I often used this, when i was developing on the scarab gui. it is
really practical ;-)

>>     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.

that is what i was afraid to hear. I played with it a year ago. i was not too convinced about that thing.
it smelled too complex...

> 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?

i am completely on your side. I was always one of those old fashioned ones, who kept with the ant build.
so i was driving the ant build and keeping it in shape for a long time, while i was rarely using maven.
it is truly a pity, that we have 2 build systems, but i remember there where quite hard debates about
using the one or the other. so we ended in using both ;-(

Well... the ant side seems to be in much better shape... so my opinion would be: throw out maven
and stick with ant. At least it looks like we should get rid of oldest stuff. Right now maven-1 starts
getting odd. So go to maven-2 or turn to ant ... the debate is open again ...

if we would vote now, i would vote for ant as always ;-)

hussayn


> Ronny
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> 


-- 
Dr. Hussayn Dabbous
SAXESS Software Design GmbH
Neuenhöfer Allee 125
50935 Köln

tel.: +49 221 560 11 0
fax.: +49 221 560 11 20

mailto:[email protected]
http://www.saxess.de
http://www.saxess.com
http://www.saxess.org