From: Alan D. C. <li...@to...> - 2007-12-09 23:45:36
|
On Dec 9, 2007, at 1:56 AM, Flavio Junqueira wrote: > Hi Alan, I think you have some valid points such as the one on new > bindings and a separation into modules. And, I agree it would be > useful to have our state-machine implementation separate in a way > that other projects could re-use it. > > Although I like some of your points, I'm with the others. I don't > see a strong reason for switching to Maven, and it seems to me that > your concerns are more with respect to the organization of the > software than with the tool we are using. I'd rather stay with ant > for now. I think I should have been more explicit as to why I listed my ideas. I assumed, without thinking, that you already knew what their portents meant. People will be forced to hand assemble their servers and clients. Before I go on to explain I want to make sure you all know that I'm fine with Ant and will just hand upload the jars to my personal Maven repository for others to use. People will want to include Java or DotNet bindings in their services. People can download the jars by hand and check them into their ant build or use Maven for automatic inclusion. Like I said above, I will hand upload the jars to my personal Maven repository for others to use. The PAXOS implementation will be another jar that others will use in a like manner. We will also need to use this internally as well. Maven handles this quite cleanly. Finally, the configuration code. The server will need to be assembled w/ different kinds of configuration mechanisms. Sometimes I will want to have a simple properties based server boot up for my unit testing. When I deploy I will want my server bundled w/ OSGi service and configuration code. Others will want to wire in their own configuration code and will want to use specific version combinations of ZooKeeper code with their own company's code. Maven handles these assembly situations quite nicely. The objections that I hear seem to be from people who all work at the same company and are, probably, in the same group. I imagine that things will be done a single way and and these assembly scenarios would not apply and so Ant seems good enough. Others, I can guarantee, will be forced to go on, what I call, an Easter egg hunt to assemble the jar set to fulfill their needs. Sorry for the long winded post. I'm happy to agree to disagree and let it lie as it is. Let's go on to some interesting bits! Regards, Alan |