Re: Maven: archetypes, infrastructure, and documentation
Re: Maven: archetypes, infrastructure, and documentation
- Subject: Re: Maven: archetypes, infrastructure, and documentation
- From: Lachlan Deck <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 13:52:55 +1100
On 29/01/2012, at 1:59 AM, G Brown wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2012, at 5:54 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
>
>> On 27/01/2012, at 9:08 AM, Greg Brown wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 20, 2012, at 6:39 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> It's pretty streamlined as it is from my point of view. The only thing to complain about is that the current templates give you a pom.xml file that may need updating. That's easy to fix.
>
> There is more to fix.
Sure... it should be seamless.
> Get eclipse 3.7, create a new modern D2W (praise all Davids), drop in a model backed by a database somewhere. With standard wolips many/all things work. At the bottom of a page you have:
> <PastedGraphic-1.tiff>
>
> All of those debugging aids work. Now make a maven project, copy the FB sources, components, update dependencies--in short--create the same project as a maven project. Now you will find many things that don't work.
I never used D2W, but you shouldn't need to copy anything. You should have an archetype that starts you off with everything required for 'Hello, World' etc to work.
> As I said, below :
>
>>>> 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.
>
> I think you will be lucky to get the same project that runs under wolips to run in eclipse as a maven project. I could do the above and get a maven project to run under the command line, but not eclipse. The current state of wolips and Wonder make the current way maven works difficult. Just as a practical matter, I thought it would be easier to use wolips. There are limitations on wolips and Wonder.
Sure. But I think it will remain hard if you're contorting maven to suit wolips. By doing so you'll at some point experience limitations and pain on either side (particularly with any new developments in either). Fix the real bugs and everyone will be happy.
>>> Right now it is designed to be a totally separate system from the wolips system.
>> That's not true. But I think it's the other way around.
>> WOLips makes assumptions about the kinds of dependencies being (such as framework bundles rather than jars). That's the chief cause of any pain using maven (or any build system other than wolips + ant).
>
> It is not just wolips; Wonder does too!
Not all of Wonder. Just those few places that assume physical files on disk. Again, that can be fixed in many cases.
> many java systems take jar frameworks. Some of them, like Tomcat, decompress before using, but I don't think all systems do, which could break things if some Wonder thing is used which assumes non-jar frameworks.
>
> So having a java web ORM framework system that fails at using jars (Wonder) should be of some concern to the whole wocommunity.
I agree. But hardly anyone in the current community bothers with container deployments (that I'm aware of). So this will only get addressed when people who are concerned with such things add value to the community by fixing it themselves.
>>> The archetypes for project creation do need some updating. But--do we need maven archetypes?
>>
>> Yes, imho. Maven has standard ways of doing things such as creating a new project that works for *any* type of project with an archetype.
>> They're simple to maintain and provide standard ways of creating projects that do not require an Eclipse installation.
>
> But can you imagine creating a project and developing it without eclipse? Really?
Yes. But that's beside the point. The point of a maven build is that you should be able to check it out and build it... i.e., it's self contained. If it requires eclipse to work that's a problem. As a developer you may wish to use eclipse (or Intellij or Netbeans or emacs or vim... whatever). Eclipse (or whichever IDE) should, of course, provide conveniences during development.
>>> 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.
>>
>> If people using maven want to use FB by all means create a feature for it or additional archetypes. Debugging should just work because it's java not because of the project layout.
>>
>> <...>
>> Personally I think the community would benefit by putting effort into making wolips more agnostic to the build system underneath it. i.e., it should just care that there is a classpath and resources should work whether as a file on disk or in a jar dependency.
>
> +1 Yes, I would agree to that.
>
>> Put your efforts there and then you won't need to try and retrofit maven (or any other build system) to a particular FB layout or whatever.
>
> That is a good long term direction.
It requires co-operation with the main contributors, however. i.e., there needs to be a standard interface in wolips (I assume there is one already) which resolves resources according to the relevant layout.
> But right now, I am thinking about the short term, as in the future we will just talk to IBM's Watson and tell it what we want for our web app, and Watson will create it. For the immediate future, we have a system that assumes file based frameworks and FB, which makes developing under eclipse-maven difficult. Builds from the command line work fine, however.
Sure. The reality is that such problems will persist regardless until it's fixed. i.e., even if you change your maven frameworks to use the FB layout during development for any decent sized project you won't always want to have every framework open in eclipse in order for wolips to resolve the resources properly.
Anyway, unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to lend much of a hand...
Lachlan Deck
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
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