On 23 March 2012 12:06, Barry Hawkins <ba...@alltc.com> wrote: > Maven is pretty handy when you lay out your project using the conventions > that Maven chooses, but getting used to Maven's Build Lifecycle[0] is often > an adjustment. I often prefer Ant + Ivy, mostly because Ant is so > straightforward and Ivy gives me the transitive dependency management that > was always Maven's one cool feature which made people put up with the build > lifecycle hassle and the need to create Maven plugins for even the most > trivial tasks at times. You can google "maven versus ant" to see a number of > writeups about the tradeoffs between those choices. > [0] - > http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-the-lifecycle.html
Yes, ant vs maven is completely YMMV and neither is particularly favoured. (to veer slightly off-topic) If your ant scripts aren't complete rubbish and somewhat work, you can get a long way just cleaning those up rather than rewriting them for Maven. I've been doing a few months of this at work with great results. Ant is a horrible programming language (as, I am told, is Maven), but can be beaten into doing almost anything you will need. - d. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caj0tu1gjh8i1bnnhxmqdas3achj7ch+zfd47yfifesvoq3c...@mail.gmail.com
