On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Martin Gainty<mgai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > here in the US DOD vendors are converting their build.xml and implementing to > maven for: > offline repository(secure from middle-eastern attackers) > version-specific SCM tagging > security (ability to enforce SSH handshake to ftp via sftp and scp) > > http://www.sonatype.com/people/2009/04/how-to-convert-from-ant-to-maven-in-5-minutes/
I'm sure Maven has come a long way since I looked at it, and it does encapsulate a lot of good practices, but it's my-way-or-the-highway philosophy went against the grain for me. Using Ant doesn't "force" you to have a badly designed monolithic build, although I grant you it doesn't prevent it like Maven does. In the past, if something's wrong with your Maven build, good luck troubleshooting it, whereas Ant is easier IMHO, although again this is an old experience (and the Maven user list didn't help me solve it either. Hopefully their community has evolved since). Code with non clear dependencies is bad in any build system. Your blog post IMHO confuses cleaning the code and switching build system. The declarative nature of poms is good, but it can be leveraged using Ivy+Ant rather than Maven. All this to say that going from Ant to Maven is a lot more complex that you make it sound, and that Ant is not really the issue here, but the design of the code and its build. --DD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@ant.apache.org
