Re: [Zookeeper-user] Moving to maven

[Andrew K. <ak...@ya...>]

Alan,

 

I'm sure your points are all valid. But I'm also sure there will be other
folks who believe their XYZ project management system is the way to go and
yet other folks who would just love to be able to use good ol' Ant or
Ant+Ivy or whatever. 

 

For example, for our in-house applications using zookeeper, we have to use
an exotic combination of Ant, Makefile, shell scripts and internal package
management tools to build and deploy zookeeper distributions. And since the
company also relies on its internal "convention over configuration", a few
extra building/staging/packaging steps are involved to accommodate the
requirements. (By the way, lest you suspect us of being parochial or lazy,
moving to Maven wouldn't make any difference to us in that respect :-) ).

 

Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, Maven would be of no special advantage
over Ant with languages other than Java.

 

Regards,

Andrew

 

  _____  

From: zoo...@li...
[mailto:zoo...@li...] On Behalf Of Alan D.
Cabrera
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 3:46 PM
To: zoo...@li...
Subject: Re: [Zookeeper-user] Moving to maven

 

 

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