need clearification with inplace development

Hi;

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

1.) in the docs we have mentioned war:inplace and
scarab:inplace as 2 goals.
     while war:inplace does something, scarab:inplace does
not exist.
     So i assume, this is a typo in the docs ?

     look at xdocs/howto/maven-build-howto.xml

2.) maven war:inplace copies the libs to
src/webapp/WEB-INF/lib and
     it also copies the classes. but...
     the docs mention, that other files are modified,
especially the
     tomcat/webapps/scarab.xml should be modified so that
the correct
     source folder is found. But this file is not touched.

3.) the docs say, that maven clean would be used to revert
war:inplace.
     this is not true. it simply removes the target folder.
The files
     generated by maven war:inplace are not removed.

4.) the term inplace development is missleading to some
extend...
     first of all the build systems (maven AND ant) will
still create
     the classes under the target folder...
     I expected, that the build system would create the
classes under
     src/webapp/WEB-INF/classes once maven war:inplace has
been run. But
     in reality you need to "maven war:inplace"
over and over when you modify
     java sources...

     so it is like this:

     maven java:compile    is "normal build"
     maven war:inplace     is "inplace build"

     I can live with that, but we should make it clearer in
the docs.

===================

PROPOSALS:

1.) what about renaming the target "war:inplace"
to "java:inplace" ?
     or alternatively rename "java:compile" to
"war.compile" ?

2.) Repair the broken functionality in maven
     BTW ... What is about maven-2 ?

regards, hussayn



-- 
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:infosaxess.de
http://www.saxess.de
http://www.saxess.com
http://www.saxess.org

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribescarab.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helpscarab.tigris.org

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

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribescarab.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helpscarab.tigris.org

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: dev-unsubscribescarab.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helpscarab.tigris.org
> 


-- 
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:infosaxess.de
http://www.saxess.de
http://www.saxess.com
http://www.saxess.org

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribescarab.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helpscarab.tigris.org

If you bet something on my opinion, I would vote for ant,
too. Throw out 
the out dated maven. It is really confusing to have so many
redundance 
build options.

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribescarab.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helpscarab.tigris.org