On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: <some snipping/>
> Looking at this with a different mindset, I would like to point out > that this "maven vs. centipede" 'querrelle' is harming us more than it > is helping us. Yes, it was my fault to be polite to Ken Nicola also mentioning Centipede as an alternative ;-) > I personally see no reason to change the build system, but if somebody > volunteers to get remove stuff from our build and delegate the job to > others, well, I'm all about avoiding reinventing wheels, so +1 I've started it to see how the community reacts on something like this. I'm sorry to be the reason for this friction. > At the same time, the Maven vs. Centipede debate is a human one, exactly > technology is something that can easily be changed, personal feelings > aren't. There is friction between the people behind Maven and the > people behind Centipede. > > This is also the reason, I believe, while Maven integration with > Forrest is so weak: Weak? I'd say it is inexistent. It's the Anakia vs. XSLT debate (and Forrest is alot of XSLT for them I think). Maven uses their own DTD for documentation. But for a project we are running ATM we've found a way to integrate it (ok, it's just a hack, but it works for now). But as Forrest depends on Cocoon, and Cocoon doesn't play with Maven ATM it's a chicken egg problem. See, if Cocoon was mavenified, Forrest could build a plugin just easily. > the maven community associates, transivitely, > forrest with Centipede. So it stays away from it. > > I think we should make an effort to get out of this silly 'impasse' and > move on. > > [why am I using so many french terms today?] > > I'm -1 on Centipede for the following reasons: > > 1) it would progress the fracture between Maven and Forrest. > 2) it would increase the friction, might give the centipede people > feelings like "we should be an asf project too, so that the competition > is fair", increase the friction even more, waste some of our energy in > incubation, would force us to follow a moving target > 3) lack of integration with Gump wouldn't hurt since it's going to be > painful anyway to integrate gump with our real blocks (centipede nor > maven support debian-style virtual modules, AFAIK) I can totally understand your points. > I know very little about Maven and Centipede, yet I've seen the flames > go by. This sucks. > > We care about Forrest, we care about Gump. If Maven does good things > but lacks a few, we should use it *exactly* for that: so that we can > improve it, build synergies, instead of wasting energies in progressing > a competition. That's what I thought could be the way to improve Maven in a direction we'd like it to move. -- Giacomo Pati Otego AG, Switzerland - http://www.otego.com Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
