On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 05:09, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Ok, I read what you said and we'll chalk it up to miscommunication and a misunderstanding. I am admittedly obstinate and can be unflexible, I never meant the level of animosity to grow to the point that it did. I sincerely apologize.
> What I did see was massive duplication of efforts in Apache and > elsewhere that I did not want to accept. > > There is Gump, why POM? > There is Ant, why Jelly? > There is Centipede cents, why Maven plugins? > > Simply that was the decision of the Maven developers, ok. We definitely made those decisions and I think you have to look at what the outcome was. Gump had been running for a long time before Maven even became visible and Maven notions of a project descriptor are far more widely used now than Gump's because I think it is seen as being more clear. Users decided of their own accord. Anyone can search through all the Apache archives and see that I made no huge lobbying effort to shove Maven down anyone's throat. I even asked that Jon Steven's cease and desist when hailed Maven as the grand replacement on Jakarta. My opinions are still pretty much the same as when Maven started. That the Gump descriptor was convoluted and I decided to completely disregard it as a failed effort; that the Ant task are an amazing repository of utility code but that Ant itself suffers from some severe architectural deficiencies and that Jelly provides a better harness for the utility code (I also believe Jelly's current implementation is sorely lacking, but that's another issue all together); and finally that something based on Gump and Ant would not be a long lasting solution. That's what I felt and I pushed those notions in the Maven community. There too I didn't have to do any lobbying to reach a consensus. Everyone agreed so we continued down that path. We are at the point where publishers want books written about Maven, it is being used all over the place of user's own volition and the mailing list traffic is growing at an enormous rate. I think users have validated our original ideas and our choices by the fact it is growing in popularity and use on a daily basis. > But please leave me the possibility to have a different opinion on this > way of doing things. It is often that I have noted to people that Maven is not the solution for them. Lot's of folks on the Maven list have been met with my responses to find a more suitable tool for their task. I have in fact pointed them at Ant and Centipede. > http://www.jroller.com/page/nicolaken/20030228 > > >>I don't see why would an indipendent and cross-project repository effort > >>and library have to be under Maven. > > > > It certainly doesn't but you also can't ignore what Maven has done for > > the notion of a repository. > > Of course. > > > In any case I think that if you wish to incubate Ruper then I am +1. > > Thanks. I hope that the results will be so good that Maven will be > compelled to use it. I also hope that Maven developers will participate > in the project. > > Jason, thanks for your fair and clear comments. I hope that this can put > an end to our incomprehensions about what happened. I think we have, which is definitely a good thing. -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
