Ivy configurations

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Ivy configurations

Alan Cabrera
Near as I can tell this project went w/ Ant/Ivy because of Ivy's  
configurations; I'm aware of other reasons but I do not find those  
compelling.

I'm curious about what problems exactly Ivy configurations solved that  
Maven did not.


Regards,
Alan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ivy configurations

Alan D. Cabrera
s/compelling/interesting to me personally/

I don't want to start a flame war...   ;)



Regards,
Alan

On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:

> Near as I can tell this project went w/ Ant/Ivy because of Ivy's  
> configurations; I'm aware of other reasons but I do not find those  
> compelling.
>
> I'm curious about what problems exactly Ivy configurations solved  
> that Maven did not.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ivy configurations

Joshua Partogi-2
Alan,

Les already written it down on http://www.leshazlewood.com/?p=44

I must agree that the pom.xml that Ivy generated does not comply :-(

best regards,

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[hidden email]> wrote:

> s/compelling/interesting to me personally/
>
> I don't want to start a flame war...   ;)
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> Near as I can tell this project went w/ Ant/Ivy because of Ivy's
>> configurations; I'm aware of other reasons but I do not find those
>> compelling.
>>
>> I'm curious about what problems exactly Ivy configurations solved that
>> Maven did not.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>
>



--
Not by might nor by power, but by His Spirit.

Read my blog: http://joshuajava.wordpress.com/
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/jpartogi
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ivy configurations

Alan D. Cabrera
Yep, I read that.  All I could see was an explanation on Ivy  
Configurations.  I'm always interested in what can be accomplished  
cleanly, if at all, in Ant/Ivy but not the Maven or visa versa.

In this project's case, I think that things can be handled by  
splitting the web code out into its own jar.

Of course, I could have missed something.


Regards,
Alan

On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Joshua Partogi wrote:

> Alan,
>
> Les already written it down on http://www.leshazlewood.com/?p=44
>
> I must agree that the pom.xml that Ivy generated does not comply :-(
>
> best regards,
>
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Alan D. Cabrera  
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> s/compelling/interesting to me personally/
>>
>> I don't want to start a flame war...   ;)
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>> On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>>> Near as I can tell this project went w/ Ant/Ivy because of Ivy's
>>> configurations; I'm aware of other reasons but I do not find those
>>> compelling.
>>>
>>> I'm curious about what problems exactly Ivy configurations solved  
>>> that
>>> Maven did not.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Alan
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Not by might nor by power, but by His Spirit.
>
> Read my blog: http://joshuajava.wordpress.com/
> Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/jpartogi
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ivy configurations

Les Hazlewood-2
Hi Alan,

Yep, there's no doubt that we could have a jsecurity-web.jar.  It'd be
very easy to do.  Since JSecurity was designed from the ground up to
work in any environment, web or not, it would be pretty easy to
extract the web stuff into its own jar.

Aside from Ivy configs being better than maven in expressing
transitive dependencies, the other main reason for staying with
Ivy+Ant was due to 'customizability'.  Modifying Maven to do what you
want, e.g. via special plugins, is nasty, especially when Maven
upgrades cause your plugins to fail.  Allan can speak more about this,
as it has particularly plagued him at work.

I personally can't stand the suggested maven directory structure.  If
you have more than one or two modules, the traversing of directory
trees in your IDE becomes quickly unbearable.  I just don't like it.
The current structure we have in place with Ivy however is a lot more
flexible and we can change it any way we like.

At least that's my .02.  And just for clarity's sake, and to quell
Joshua's concerns, we don't use the Ivy-generated pom.xml.  We
manually edit it to ensure its correctness.

Cheers,

Les

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 3:28 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yep, I read that.  All I could see was an explanation on Ivy Configurations.
>  I'm always interested in what can be accomplished cleanly, if at all, in
> Ant/Ivy but not the Maven or visa versa.
>
> In this project's case, I think that things can be handled by splitting the
> web code out into its own jar.
>
> Of course, I could have missed something.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Joshua Partogi wrote:
>
>> Alan,
>>
>> Les already written it down on http://www.leshazlewood.com/?p=44
>>
>> I must agree that the pom.xml that Ivy generated does not comply :-(
>>
>> best regards,
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> s/compelling/interesting to me personally/
>>>
>>> I don't want to start a flame war...   ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>
>>>> Near as I can tell this project went w/ Ant/Ivy because of Ivy's
>>>> configurations; I'm aware of other reasons but I do not find those
>>>> compelling.
>>>>
>>>> I'm curious about what problems exactly Ivy configurations solved that
>>>> Maven did not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Not by might nor by power, but by His Spirit.
>>
>> Read my blog: http://joshuajava.wordpress.com/
>> Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/jpartogi
>>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ivy configurations

Craig-3
Although I don't recompile JSecurity all that often, when I do I am  
very grateful for not having to use Maven.

Craig

On Nov 29, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:

> Hi Alan,
>
> Yep, there's no doubt that we could have a jsecurity-web.jar.  It'd be
> very easy to do.  Since JSecurity was designed from the ground up to
> work in any environment, web or not, it would be pretty easy to
> extract the web stuff into its own jar.
>
> Aside from Ivy configs being better than maven in expressing
> transitive dependencies, the other main reason for staying with
> Ivy+Ant was due to 'customizability'.  Modifying Maven to do what you
> want, e.g. via special plugins, is nasty, especially when Maven
> upgrades cause your plugins to fail.  Allan can speak more about this,
> as it has particularly plagued him at work.
>
> I personally can't stand the suggested maven directory structure.  If
> you have more than one or two modules, the traversing of directory
> trees in your IDE becomes quickly unbearable.  I just don't like it.
> The current structure we have in place with Ivy however is a lot more
> flexible and we can change it any way we like.
>
> At least that's my .02.  And just for clarity's sake, and to quell
> Joshua's concerns, we don't use the Ivy-generated pom.xml.  We
> manually edit it to ensure its correctness.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Les
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ivy configurations

Alan D. Cabrera
In reply to this post by Les Hazlewood-2

On Nov 29, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:

> Hi Alan,
>
> Yep, there's no doubt that we could have a jsecurity-web.jar.  It'd be
> very easy to do.  Since JSecurity was designed from the ground up to
> work in any environment, web or not, it would be pretty easy to
> extract the web stuff into its own jar.

So it comes down to personal preference where you prefer to have the  
web code mixed in with the same place and have the build system  
extract the bits that are needed depending on the Ivy configuration.

> Aside from Ivy configs being better than maven in expressing
> transitive dependencies, the other main reason for staying with
> Ivy+Ant was due to 'customizability'.  Modifying Maven to do what you
> want, e.g. via special plugins, is nasty, especially when Maven
> upgrades cause your plugins to fail.  Allan can speak more about this,
> as it has particularly plagued him at work.

Apples and oranges.  IIRC, Allan was struggling with an old pre-
existing build system.

> I personally can't stand the suggested maven directory structure.  If
> you have more than one or two modules, the traversing of directory
> trees in your IDE becomes quickly unbearable.  I just don't like it.
> The current structure we have in place with Ivy however is a lot more
> flexible and we can change it any way we like.

Not sure that there is a need for that flexibility in our case.

> At least that's my .02.  And just for clarity's sake, and to quell
> Joshua's concerns, we don't use the Ivy-generated pom.xml.  We
> manually edit it to ensure its correctness.

If we're just using it to publish artifacts to the Maven repo then I  
suggest that we remove much of the POM's content that is not relevant  
to that task.


Regards,
Alan

>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Les
>
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 3:28 AM, Alan D. Cabrera  
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Yep, I read that.  All I could see was an explanation on Ivy  
>> Configurations.
>> I'm always interested in what can be accomplished cleanly, if at  
>> all, in
>> Ant/Ivy but not the Maven or visa versa.
>>
>> In this project's case, I think that things can be handled by  
>> splitting the
>> web code out into its own jar.
>>
>> Of course, I could have missed something.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>> On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Joshua Partogi wrote:
>>
>>> Alan,
>>>
>>> Les already written it down on http://www.leshazlewood.com/?p=44
>>>
>>> I must agree that the pom.xml that Ivy generated does not comply :-(
>>>
>>> best regards,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[hidden email]
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> s/compelling/interesting to me personally/
>>>>
>>>> I don't want to start a flame war...   ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Near as I can tell this project went w/ Ant/Ivy because of Ivy's
>>>>> configurations; I'm aware of other reasons but I do not find those
>>>>> compelling.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm curious about what problems exactly Ivy configurations  
>>>>> solved that
>>>>> Maven did not.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Not by might nor by power, but by His Spirit.
>>>
>>> Read my blog: http://joshuajava.wordpress.com/
>>> Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/jpartogi
>>>
>>
>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ivy configurations

Tamás Cservenák
Can't stand to stay silent :)

Traversing the source tree in IDE....
IMO, just like the "ant build" is supported in your IDE, and it sets
your build class path accordingly, the same is possible for Maven
(with at least three different plugins or tools). Hence, the physical
layout of the sources on the disk will simply become a "wood" of
source class-paths :)

I believe the number of source class paths will be always equal in
both cases, and will depend on how many actual modules you have on
disk -- and it is completely unrelated to the tool you are using to
build them (unless you have one "monolithic" source base, and
"subtract" constituents from it to produce different modules with
different contents. But in that case, how would you run Junit tests
from your IDE for example and be sure that it tests the given module,
and not the whole?).

Actually, as JSecurity is right now (one final artifact), the result
of having Ant or Maven build -- as seen thru IDE -- would present
exactly the same picture to you :)

My 2 cents.


Warning: I am biased!

Thanks,
~t~


On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Nov 29, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>
>> Hi Alan,
>>
>> Yep, there's no doubt that we could have a jsecurity-web.jar.  It'd be
>> very easy to do.  Since JSecurity was designed from the ground up to
>> work in any environment, web or not, it would be pretty easy to
>> extract the web stuff into its own jar.
>
> So it comes down to personal preference where you prefer to have the web
> code mixed in with the same place and have the build system extract the bits
> that are needed depending on the Ivy configuration.
>
>> Aside from Ivy configs being better than maven in expressing
>> transitive dependencies, the other main reason for staying with
>> Ivy+Ant was due to 'customizability'.  Modifying Maven to do what you
>> want, e.g. via special plugins, is nasty, especially when Maven
>> upgrades cause your plugins to fail.  Allan can speak more about this,
>> as it has particularly plagued him at work.
>
> Apples and oranges.  IIRC, Allan was struggling with an old pre-existing
> build system.
>
>> I personally can't stand the suggested maven directory structure.  If
>> you have more than one or two modules, the traversing of directory
>> trees in your IDE becomes quickly unbearable.  I just don't like it.
>> The current structure we have in place with Ivy however is a lot more
>> flexible and we can change it any way we like.
>
> Not sure that there is a need for that flexibility in our case.
>
>> At least that's my .02.  And just for clarity's sake, and to quell
>> Joshua's concerns, we don't use the Ivy-generated pom.xml.  We
>> manually edit it to ensure its correctness.
>
> If we're just using it to publish artifacts to the Maven repo then I suggest
> that we remove much of the POM's content that is not relevant to that task.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Les
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 3:28 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yep, I read that.  All I could see was an explanation on Ivy
>>> Configurations.
>>> I'm always interested in what can be accomplished cleanly, if at all, in
>>> Ant/Ivy but not the Maven or visa versa.
>>>
>>> In this project's case, I think that things can be handled by splitting
>>> the
>>> web code out into its own jar.
>>>
>>> Of course, I could have missed something.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Joshua Partogi wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alan,
>>>>
>>>> Les already written it down on http://www.leshazlewood.com/?p=44
>>>>
>>>> I must agree that the pom.xml that Ivy generated does not comply :-(
>>>>
>>>> best regards,
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> s/compelling/interesting to me personally/
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't want to start a flame war...   ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Near as I can tell this project went w/ Ant/Ivy because of Ivy's
>>>>>> configurations; I'm aware of other reasons but I do not find those
>>>>>> compelling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm curious about what problems exactly Ivy configurations solved that
>>>>>> Maven did not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Not by might nor by power, but by His Spirit.
>>>>
>>>> Read my blog: http://joshuajava.wordpress.com/
>>>> Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/jpartogi
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>



--
Thanks,
~t~
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ivy configurations

Les Hazlewood-2
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Tamás Cservenák <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Can't stand to stay silent :)

That's cool - I definitely appreciate your feedback Tamás, even if I
may not agree with it 100% :)

> Traversing the source tree in IDE....
> IMO, just like the "ant build" is supported in your IDE, and it sets
> your build class path accordingly, the same is possible for Maven
> (with at least three different plugins or tools). Hence, the physical
> layout of the sources on the disk will simply become a "wood" of
> source class-paths :)

So by that same argument, we can keep our src trees where they are now
and have Maven play nice without much effort at all, right? ;)  At
least Ant allows us this flexibility...

In any case, the source path acquisition is not my gripe here - any
good IDE will pick that stuff up automatically.  My complaint is in
the overall project view, which I use exclusively for all of my
projects.

That is, I want to check out trunk, and from there, navigate to any
src tree I need.  The further down those src directories are, the more
of a hassle it is overall.  I just don't want to click 4 times to see
the directory I care about - 1 or 2 at most.  Granted the difference
is small, but if you do it a few hundred times a day, especially
across more than one 'module', it gets annoying _very_ quickly.

All of this goes to personal preference of course.  My IDE of choice,
IntelliJ IDEA, handles modules beautifully and will 'flatten' them out
at the root project level such that I see each module
compartmentalized.  But, I choose not to use that feature, because it
hides a bit of the directory layout, which I feel most comfortable in
- I like a cleanly organized and globally visible tree.

So, although the modular 'view' is a feature of the IDE, I don't wan't
to use it - it obfuscates the whole picture, which I personally like
to have quite a bit.  Forest through the trees - all that jazz ;)

>
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 29, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Alan,
>>>
>>> Yep, there's no doubt that we could have a jsecurity-web.jar.  It'd be
>>> very easy to do.  Since JSecurity was designed from the ground up to
>>> work in any environment, web or not, it would be pretty easy to
>>> extract the web stuff into its own jar.
>>
>> So it comes down to personal preference where you prefer to have the web
>> code mixed in with the same place and have the build system extract the bits
>> that are needed depending on the Ivy configuration.
>>
>>> Aside from Ivy configs being better than maven in expressing
>>> transitive dependencies, the other main reason for staying with
>>> Ivy+Ant was due to 'customizability'.  Modifying Maven to do what you
>>> want, e.g. via special plugins, is nasty, especially when Maven
>>> upgrades cause your plugins to fail.  Allan can speak more about this,
>>> as it has particularly plagued him at work.
>>
>> Apples and oranges.  IIRC, Allan was struggling with an old pre-existing
>> build system.
>>
>>> I personally can't stand the suggested maven directory structure.  If
>>> you have more than one or two modules, the traversing of directory
>>> trees in your IDE becomes quickly unbearable.  I just don't like it.
>>> The current structure we have in place with Ivy however is a lot more
>>> flexible and we can change it any way we like.
>>
>> Not sure that there is a need for that flexibility in our case.
>>
>>> At least that's my .02.  And just for clarity's sake, and to quell
>>> Joshua's concerns, we don't use the Ivy-generated pom.xml.  We
>>> manually edit it to ensure its correctness.
>>
>> If we're just using it to publish artifacts to the Maven repo then I suggest
>> that we remove much of the POM's content that is not relevant to that task.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Les
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 3:28 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yep, I read that.  All I could see was an explanation on Ivy
>>>> Configurations.
>>>> I'm always interested in what can be accomplished cleanly, if at all, in
>>>> Ant/Ivy but not the Maven or visa versa.
>>>>
>>>> In this project's case, I think that things can be handled by splitting
>>>> the
>>>> web code out into its own jar.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I could have missed something.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Joshua Partogi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Alan,
>>>>>
>>>>> Les already written it down on http://www.leshazlewood.com/?p=44
>>>>>
>>>>> I must agree that the pom.xml that Ivy generated does not comply :-(
>>>>>
>>>>> best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> s/compelling/interesting to me personally/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't want to start a flame war...   ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Near as I can tell this project went w/ Ant/Ivy because of Ivy's
>>>>>>> configurations; I'm aware of other reasons but I do not find those
>>>>>>> compelling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm curious about what problems exactly Ivy configurations solved that
>>>>>>> Maven did not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Not by might nor by power, but by His Spirit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read my blog: http://joshuajava.wordpress.com/
>>>>> Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/jpartogi
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> ~t~
>