On Jan 10, 2008 9:33 PM, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2008 2:13 PM, Xavier Hanin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 2008 7:21 PM, Peter Arrenbrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Providing
> > > override hooks is all well and good, but that is still basically the
> > > very controlled and rigit maven approach, I think.
> >
> > It depends on what you accept to do in your override. If the build system
> > somewhat relies on Ant import mechanism, you are able to override  any
> > target defined by the build system. In the end if you have something very
> > specific the worst that could happen is override everything, making the
> > build system useless except it first provided a structure. But at least you
> > are always free, which is not the case with maven.
>
> Maven's override hooks are a good thing IMHO. The problem with Ant is
> that you have to provide them explicitly in the ''abstract'' build
> file so that the ''concrete'' build can override them, as opposed to
> Maven's hooks, where you simply define in pre-goal in the concrete
> build without any need to modify the abstract build.
>
> It's the C++ where all class methods are non-virtual by default, and
> and Java where there's virtual by default. Unless the class is
> specifically designed not to be extended, the Java way is more
> flexible because you can often intercept the virtual call and make
> your pre and post processing there. (let's not go into philosophical
> flame about the good or bad of this please)

Hmm. I was expecting the abstract build to be well designed in this
case (and yes, I believe in carefully designed overridability). But,
more importantly, if it does not suit your needs, in Ant you can just
override the import with the exact code you copy from the template,
and then tweak it. Advantages of that have been discussed further
above in this thread.

-peo

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to