>> And I (as a user) would like to see Cayenne "just working". Really, "just working", nothing more :).
>> All other extra things that make the first and most important thing of "just working" less reliable
>> or less functional or a PITA should not be done IMHO. If it "just works" than afterwards there's
>> still time to do all sort of ...
>>
> A couple of observations...
>
> 1. Maven affects no one, but those few who compile the src. Like
> Andrus, I am doubtful about its value to Cayenne but keeping an open
> mind till we can play with Bill's work.
Of course, keeping an open mind is important. This is why I also deeply test
each new Maven release. Moving to it however means a different thing and it's a decision.
> 3. This has lots to do with geronimo... sounds like you don't have the
> full context of this discussion. I suggest you read the rest of the
> thread and/or the related maven/jpa threads :)
I did, however as a user I can't say that I'm very happy.
I'm using Cayenne (where I can or where I'm allowed to do it) just because of one thing:
"The Modeler", since this is that is the most closest to WebObject's productivity level.
I might be wrong, but from all these directions in the mailing lists, I have the bad presentiment
that it will be the most ignored part despite the fact that it's the only that give Cayenne a great
productivity
advantage over the concurrence.
> (p.s. if it's not broken doesn't apply because its not yet created!!!)
I was meaning ANT. ANT, or the way of building projects with ANT is not broken so
there's no need to fix it with Maven. There are of course better ideas than ANT, but in *practice*,
ANT "just works", so IMHO it needs no fix.
Ahmed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Feb 28 2006 - 18:21:55 EST