Re: Maven: archetypes, infrastructure, and documentation
Re: Maven: archetypes, infrastructure, and documentation
- Subject: Re: Maven: archetypes, infrastructure, and documentation
- From: Greg Brown <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:08:06 -0500
On Jan 20, 2012, at 6:39 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
> I've been away over the Christmas break, but it appears no one's replied, so...
>
> Henrique and I worked on those archetypes a few years ago. I've not been doing any WebObjects development for a couple of years now; hence I've not had the need nor the opportunity to update them.
>
> But please feel free to attempt to improve them, via github.
Yes, the maven stuff needs a little love and attention. This makes me wonder if there can be a streamlining of maven. Right now it is designed to be a totally separate system from the wolips system. Of course, that means a whole separate system to maintain, document, test, etc. Maybe maven can be streamlined to require less maintenance work?
The archetypes for project creation do need some updating. But--do we need maven archetypes? What am I thinking?
One way to use maven would be to use the regular FluffyBunny (FB) projects creation, then have a wolips | goodie | option | choice that would take a FB project and write a POM.xml. This option could be extended to even clone the FB project, and put it in a src/main folder structure instead of the FB folder structure, and make it a maven nature project in eclipse, if it really mattered or was necessary. Development/debugging would then take place with the same standard eclipse/wolips setup, which has many useful debugging tools, debugging screens, some of which don't work with maven-natured eclipse projects. All the wiki documentation would not need anything special for maven, as everybody would be developing/debugging with the standard wolips. However, if somebody wanted to turn in a project, and not require downloading Wonder, and all the directory setup, Wonder installation, etc.--then they could just generate a pom.xml and turn in their project.
I think the best thing about maven is that all one needs to build one's project is a pom.xml (+maven). It doesn't require Eclipse, downloading Wonder, or any of that complication. I suspect that most developers also build the production version, test, and do everything themselves, so they already have eclipse, Wonder, etc. But maven is nice because one just needs to "mvn clean deploy", and that works on Windows, linux, MacOS: there is no downloading eclipse on windows/linux/Mac, compiling Wonder with all the right wobuild.propeties, etc. A chimpanzee could probably build a production woa; I am not sure about a monkey. I also like that the correct version of a jar is specified, no ambiguous questions like: What version was that? or where did those jars go?
I don't know if the development part of a maven project in eclipse is what people (4 or 5 people?) like; development seems to work better using standard wolips.The portable almost-now-standard maven build process is useful. The repository / library system is wonderful too; as one can find about any jar, any version, and use it. And, with the nexus maven repository, one will have a copy of all the artifacts/jars needed to build one's projects, until the disk and backups fail.
Maybe a more streamlined approach, which piggybacks on all the wolips stuff would be a useful future direction. It would be more efficient, require less upkeep.
Any thoughts about this?
_______________________________________________
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