Re: Hudson and frameworks reference
Re: Hudson and frameworks reference
- Subject: Re: Hudson and frameworks reference
- From: Q <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 10:42:21 +1000
On 15/01/2011, at 9:49 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
> On 15/01/2011, at 2:12 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
>
>> I'm all for Q's approach, too. For me, Ivy is the part of Maven that isn't so bad. You get the dependency management without all the other stuff on top.
>
> And, of course, you can interpret 'all the other stuff on top' in one of two ways:
> a) negatively, which seems to be the way this particular community keeps the myth going that it'll be too much pain. (Perhaps certain people have a hang-over from maven 1?).
> b) positively, as meaning all the additional benefits maven provides and with less pain overall.
>
> I found the latter to be true. :) Having everything is configured in your pom file(s) and thus in version control (rather than requiring external configs on differing environments), dependency management, proper build lifecycles (with testing, integration testing etc), convention over configuration, lots of handy plugins easily adapted. It's definitely worth a serious look.
I have looked at maven on more than one occasion. Maven tries to solve problems that I don't currently have, and makes some that I do have costly (in time) to readdress, at the expense of throwing away functionality and knowledge I and others already have invested in our current build environment. Ivy borrows concepts from maven to solve the problem at hand without being disruptive to the existing processes, therefore that's what I use. If maven is the right choice for you that's great, but it's currently not the right choice for me.
--
Seeya...Q
Quinton Dolan - email@hidden
Gold Coast, QLD, Australia (GMT+10)
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden