On 3/12/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:52 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 12/03/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 3/12/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:29 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > <snip/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For components that are targetted at Java 1.4+, I'd say drop the > M1 > > > > > build files entirely, as IMO they don't offer any benefit, and > are > > > > > confusing unless they are maintained in synch with the M2 files. > > > > > > > > > > > > If they work I see no need to delete. > > > > > > > > > > <snap/> > > > > > > Specifically, please do not delete m1 and ant builds for [scxml]. I > > > use the m1 build very frequently. > > > > > > > Just curious: > > Is there something in M1 that M2 does not (yet) support? > > > Users who haven't moved to m2 :) > <snip/>
:-) For me, its some combination of personal preference (especially for Commons-like builds, most of which are single module), the Commons m2 build not working for me last time I tried (IIRC deployment protocol wasn't pluggable -- that was a while ago!) and the fact that I haven't even installed m2 yet on 2 out of 3 machines (though I intend to :-). The Commons m2 builds have improved greatly since I tried, thanks to all the hard work others have put in and they do more than the m1 builds ATM (the felix plugin jumps to mind). There are few m2 quirks (ongoing license header discussion), but there are also workarounds. I'll be trying out the m2 builds again (hopefully soon). -Rahul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
