Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Archived » IAM (Eclipse Integration for Apache Maven) » What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects?
What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #1362] Tue, 20 November 2007 09:05 Go to next message
Aaron Digulla is currently offline Aaron Digulla
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2009
Location: Switzerland
Senior Member
On your webpages, you don't mention the other two maven integrations
anywhere, namely the plugin for maven ("mvn eclipse:eclipse" on the
commandline) and the Maven Integration for Eclipse (an Eclipse plugin).
The latter has matured very much in the last few months.

Don't you know about these projects or is there a specific reason why you
add a third variant to the pool?

Best Regards,

--
Aaron Digulla
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #1370 is a reply to message #1362] Tue, 20 November 2007 23:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Abel Mui is currently offline Abel Mui
Messages: 247
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
I would say that the main advantage of q4e over the existing solutions is
its
flexibility to incorporate new features.

The maven plug-in (eclipse:eclipse) only generates/modifies eclipse files
and
can not be easily extended by third parties to configure their eclipse
plug-
in. On the other hand, q4e/iam will be ready for extension by using
extension
points.

On the other hand, m2eclipse (the eclipse plug-in) has been coded with a
monolithic design, which limits its extensibility. As noted above, since
q4e/
iam has been designed as a collection of plug-ins and extension points, it
is
far easier to add support for new features. Even third parties will be
able
to do so.

This are just my views, I hope I helped.

digulla@hepe.com (Aaron Digulla) wrote:

> On your webpages, you don't mention the other two maven integrations
> anywhere
[...]
> Don't you know about these projects or is there a specific reason why you
> add a third variant to the pool?

--
Abel Muiño - http://ramblingabout.wordpress.com
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #1376 is a reply to message #1370] Tue, 20 November 2007 23:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eugene Kuleshov is currently offline Eugene Kuleshov
Messages: 505
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Abel Muiño wrote:
> On the other hand, m2eclipse (the eclipse plug-in) has been coded with
> a monolithic design, which limits its extensibility.
That is simply not true. m2eclipse does export plexus container, maven
core as well as its own classes to allow extensibility. The
extensibility in m2eclipse been driven by community requests (you can
search for resolved JIRA issues) and it been also proven in Maven and
Subclipse integrations that are also part of the m2eclipse project.

Anyways, I found it quite remarkable that IAM project proposal chose
to ignore existing integrations and not only didn't contact developers
of these projects but also didn't mention projects in the proposal
document at http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/iam/

regards,
Eugene

PS: just in case you don't know, I am one of the founders of Maven
integration for Eclipse project (AKA m2eclipse)
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #1382 is a reply to message #1362] Wed, 21 November 2007 04:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Carlos Sanchez is currently offline Carlos Sanchez
Messages: 40
Registered: July 2009
Member
I see the proposal as an initial work in progress document that can be
updated, and that's why this newsgroup has been created, to discuss and
improve it.

Now, I don't see much point on talking about the eclipse plugin for
Maven (mvn eclipse:eclipse), it was just a minimal way to get your Maven
projects into eclipse while there was no other option, and runs outside
Eclipse.

You mention "Maven Integration for Eclipse" which I imagine is Tycho
(formerly known as m2eclipse), I'll answer that on Eugene post in this
same thread.

Regards


Aaron Digulla wrote:
> On your webpages, you don't mention the other two maven integrations
> anywhere, namely the plugin for maven ("mvn eclipse:eclipse" on the
> commandline) and the Maven Integration for Eclipse (an Eclipse plugin).
> The latter has matured very much in the last few months.
>
> Don't you know about these projects or is there a specific reason why
> you add a third variant to the pool?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> --
> Aaron Digulla
>
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #1388 is a reply to message #1376] Wed, 21 November 2007 06:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Carlos Sanchez is currently offline Carlos Sanchez
Messages: 40
Registered: July 2009
Member
As I said before, the proposal is an initial point and I will update it
or create a wiki page with a working proposal to mention Tycho as an
alternative, that's not a problem.

The developers in Tycho, which is just you Eugene afaik, were fully
aware that Q4E was going to try to move in the Eclipse Foundation, you
saw the project, there were mails sent out to the maven mailing lists,
in the maven site,... and all stated that the objective of the plugin
was to be part of the Eclipse Foundation, I don't understand the
surprise now. I haven't seen any interest from Tycho to become an
Eclipse Foundation project either.

Q4E has been careful from the beginning also to use the EPL license and
gather contrbution documents from the beginning and I'm concerned that
for Tycho the IP process could be an issue in the future if code would
be brought in the Eclipse Foundation.

Anyway I don't think there's any point in discussing which one is better
than the other, as you are involved in one and I in the other one, and
obviously we won't come to an agreement. We are both collaborating
making the underlying Maven libraries better for integration in the IDE,
and that will be good for the users of both plugins.

Regards


Eugene Kuleshov wrote:
> Abel Muiño wrote:
>> On the other hand, m2eclipse (the eclipse plug-in) has been coded with
>> a monolithic design, which limits its extensibility.
> That is simply not true. m2eclipse does export plexus container, maven
> core as well as its own classes to allow extensibility. The
> extensibility in m2eclipse been driven by community requests (you can
> search for resolved JIRA issues) and it been also proven in Maven and
> Subclipse integrations that are also part of the m2eclipse project.
>
> Anyways, I found it quite remarkable that IAM project proposal chose to
> ignore existing integrations and not only didn't contact developers of
> these projects but also didn't mention projects in the proposal document
> at http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/iam/
>
> regards,
> Eugene
>
> PS: just in case you don't know, I am one of the founders of Maven
> integration for Eclipse project (AKA m2eclipse)
>
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #1394 is a reply to message #1388] Wed, 21 November 2007 07:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eugene Kuleshov is currently offline Eugene Kuleshov
Messages: 505
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Carlos Sanchez wrote:

> As I said before, the proposal is an initial point and I will update it
> or create a wiki page with a working proposal to mention Tycho as an
> alternative, that's not a problem.

To clarify, Tycho is a set of maven plugins for building OSGi and
Eclipse RCP modules.

> The developers in Tycho, which is just you Eugene afaik,

That is also not true. For the most part I am doing coordination.
m2eclipse getting number of contributions from community
See http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNGECLIPSE-229

> were fully aware that Q4E was going to try to move in the Eclipse
Foundation, you
> saw the project, there were mails sent out to the maven mailing lists,
> in the maven site,... and all stated that the objective of the plugin
> was to be part of the Eclipse Foundation, I don't understand the
> surprise now. I haven't seen any interest from Tycho to become an
> Eclipse Foundation project either.

Honestly, did you ask me or any of the m2eclipse users?

To tell the full story to all interested community members.
DevZuz (formerly Mergere) initially been official supporter of m2eclipse
project, but at some point I've received an official note from one of your
colleagues from DevZuz, that DevZuz have no interest in continuing such
support. It is fair to not have interest to support, but then it is
strange to fork project and then jump out to the community with such
proposal.

> Q4E has been careful from the beginning also to use the EPL license and
> gather contrbution documents from the beginning and I'm concerned that
> for Tycho the IP process could be an issue in the future if code would
> be brought in the Eclipse Foundation.

You don't need to worry about IP process for project that is not even
been proposed to Eclipse.
But you do need to be concerned about your own IP process for Q4E code...

> Anyway I don't think there's any point in discussing which one is better
> than the other, as you are involved in one and I in the other one, and
> obviously we won't come to an agreement. We are both collaborating
> making the underlying Maven libraries better for integration in the IDE,
> and that will be good for the users of both plugins.

It is not about better or worse. It is about fracturing users community.
It happens before with Eclipse projects. There been cases when similar
projects been able to find a common ground (i.e. JPA tools), but there
were other cases when vendors been pushing on their own interests.
Lack of diversity on the project is really bad sign.

regards,
Eugene
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #1399 is a reply to message #1382] Wed, 21 November 2007 10:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Aaron Digulla is currently offline Aaron Digulla
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2009
Location: Switzerland
Senior Member
Carlos Sanchez wrote:

> I see the proposal as an initial work in progress document that can be
> updated, and that's why this newsgroup has been created, to discuss and
> improve it.

I was surprised because from looking at the website, it looked as if you
already have code written which seems strange for "initial work in
progress".

> Now, I don't see much point on talking about the eclipse plugin for
> Maven (mvn eclipse:eclipse), it was just a minimal way to get your Maven
> projects into eclipse while there was no other option, and runs outside
> Eclipse.

I'm mentioning this because the project has bugs which could be solved by
unifying the code base. It would be great if all projects which allow to
use Eclipse and Maven in the same work project would use the same code
base to manipulate the settings.

For example, "mvn eclipse:eclipse" by default sets the output folder of
the Eclipse project to "target/classes" which leads to all kinds of
strange problems in Eclipse if you have to use maven and Eclipse to the
same time (for example, to make sure that the CI server will not fail with
the code you're about to checkin).

On the m2eclipse side, the code to modify the pom.xml erases comments.
There are other tools in the Maven area which suffer from the same
problem. So a common code base to manipulate a pom.xml with the least
disruption of the original file would help a lot of people.

For these reasons, I was very surprised to see you start a third effort
from scratch.

Best Regards,

--
Aaron Digulla
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #1404 is a reply to message #1399] Wed, 21 November 2007 11:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Carlos Sanchez is currently offline Carlos Sanchez
Messages: 40
Registered: July 2009
Member
Aaron Digulla wrote:
> Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>
>> I see the proposal as an initial work in progress document that can be
>> updated, and that's why this newsgroup has been created, to discuss and
>> improve it.
>
> I was surprised because from looking at the website, it looked as if you
> already have code written which seems strange for "initial work in
> progress".

There's code already in the Q4E project, I was referring to the proposal
document. Still both are work on progress and feedback is more than welcome.

>
>> Now, I don't see much point on talking about the eclipse plugin for
>> Maven (mvn eclipse:eclipse), it was just a minimal way to get your Maven
>> projects into eclipse while there was no other option, and runs outside
>> Eclipse.
>
> I'm mentioning this because the project has bugs which could be solved
> by unifying the code base. It would be great if all projects which allow
> to use Eclipse and Maven in the same work project would use the same
> code base to manipulate the settings.
>
> For example, "mvn eclipse:eclipse" by default sets the output folder of
> the Eclipse project to "target/classes" which leads to all kinds of
> strange problems in Eclipse if you have to use maven and Eclipse to the
> same time (for example, to make sure that the CI server will not fail
> with the code you're about to checkin).
>
> On the m2eclipse side, the code to modify the pom.xml erases comments.
> There are other tools in the Maven area which suffer from the same
> problem. So a common code base to manipulate a pom.xml with the least
> disruption of the original file would help a lot of people.
>
> For these reasons, I was very surprised to see you start a third effort
> from scratch.

It's not actually from scratch, most of the Maven interaction is done
through a library, the "Maven embedder" that is common for all IDE
plugins, Eclipse, Netbeans, IntelliJ,...

The Eclipse plugin is reduced to Eclipse specific things, like classpath
containers, integration with run menu, displaying of events,...

>
> Best Regards,
>
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #1409 is a reply to message #1404] Wed, 21 November 2007 12:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Aaron Digulla is currently offline Aaron Digulla
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2009
Location: Switzerland
Senior Member
Carlos Sanchez wrote:

> It's not actually from scratch, most of the Maven interaction is done
> through a library, the "Maven embedder" that is common for all IDE
> plugins, Eclipse, Netbeans, IntelliJ,...

> The Eclipse plugin is reduced to Eclipse specific things, like classpath
> containers, integration with run menu, displaying of events,...

Hm :-/ This really sounds like "m2eclipse". So what is the difference
between your work and Eugene's?

More specifically, what is stopping you from building on top of Eugene's
work instead of doing it again? The MI4E plugin (Maven Integration for
Eclipse) is pretty close to being usable in production; many of the
instabilities have been fixed in the last month. The only nasty bug left
(as far as my workflow is concerned) is the "recursive resolving" bug.

If you would join this effort, I'm sure that we would have a production
quality plugin for the next release of Eclipse. If that would fly under
the flag of IAM (and thus would appear on the official Eclipse update
site), the better :-)

Regards,

--
Aaron
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #1414 is a reply to message #1409] Thu, 22 November 2007 09:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Abel Mui is currently offline Abel Mui
Messages: 247
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
One of the basic objectives of q4e/iam is to be under the umbrella of the
eclipse foundation.

Quoting Carlos (q4e/iam)...
Q4E has been careful from the beginning also to use the EPL license and
gather contribution documents from the beginning

And Quoting Eugene (m2eclipse)...
You don't need to worry about IP process for project that is not even
been proposed to Eclipse.

Besides the IP issues, there are important differences in the architecture
of both solutions that (in my opinion) make the effort of building q4e/iam
very valuable.

On the end, I find this diversity will only provide better solutions to
maven and eclipse users.
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #1418 is a reply to message #1414] Thu, 22 November 2007 13:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Aaron Digulla is currently offline Aaron Digulla
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2009
Location: Switzerland
Senior Member
Abel Muiño wrote:

> On the end, I find this diversity will only provide better solutions to
> maven and eclipse users.

Diversity can be synergy (if the teams work together) or challenge (if
they don't). From the tone in the previous posts, I'm not very hopeful for
synergy.

Also, I can't see the big advantage of solving licensing issues when the
existing code is so close to being production quality and only lacks the
nod of the Eclipse lawyers.

If you guys insist on this, then this means we all won't have anything for
about a year. If we could work together, we could iron out the most
pressing bugs in the existing work in a few weeks and then, when we have a
stable plugin, we could worry about IP.

Regards,

--
Aaron Digulla
"IP makes sense - if it pays your bills."
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #1422 is a reply to message #1418] Fri, 23 November 2007 04:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Philip Dodds is currently offline Philip Dodds
Messages: 39
Registered: July 2009
Member
Communities often diversify because the aims of the projects and the
motivations progress with time. While I think there is lots of great
work in both m2eclipse and q4e the Eclipse community have long wanted a
Maven plugin to be part of Eclipse platform and become an integration
point for other projects and technologies within Eclipse. While we
have probably all provided patches to the m2eclipse project over time
there was a desire to evolve that project into a different form and try
new ideas - thus the genesis of Q4E. Q4E has been around a while and
has come a long way and its move to Eclipse can be an exciting
opportunity for other developers to come with ideas, suggestions,
patches and join the project - becoming committers and working within
the open development process.

Just my .02c

P

On 2007-11-22 21:06:46 +0800, digulla@hepe.com (Aaron Digulla) said:

> Abel Muiño wrote:
>
>> On the end, I find this diversity will only provide better solutions to
>> maven and eclipse users.
>
> Diversity can be synergy (if the teams work together) or challenge (if
> they don't). From the tone in the previous posts, I'm not very hopeful
> for synergy.
>
> Also, I can't see the big advantage of solving licensing issues when
> the existing code is so close to being production quality and only
> lacks the nod of the Eclipse lawyers.
>
> If you guys insist on this, then this means we all won't have anything
> for about a year. If we could work together, we could iron out the most
> pressing bugs in the existing work in a few weeks and then, when we
> have a stable plugin, we could worry about IP.
>
> Regards,
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #1427 is a reply to message #1418] Fri, 23 November 2007 04:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Robert Dale is currently offline Robert Dale
Messages: 32
Registered: July 2009
Member
Aaron Digulla wrote:
> Abel Muiño wrote:
>
>> On the end, I find this diversity will only provide better solutions
>> to maven and eclipse users.
>
> Diversity can be synergy (if the teams work together) or challenge (if
> they don't). From the tone in the previous posts, I'm not very hopeful
> for synergy.
>
> Also, I can't see the big advantage of solving licensing issues when the
> existing code is so close to being production quality and only lacks the
> nod of the Eclipse lawyers.
>
> If you guys insist on this, then this means we all won't have anything
> for about a year. If we could work together, we could iron out the most
> pressing bugs in the existing work in a few weeks and then, when we have
> a stable plugin, we could worry about IP.

As an independent, third-party observer...

I was trying to get maven adopted at in my organization. I'm a cli guy,
however, I had to appease the pointy-clicky types. I initially started
out with m2eclipse. It was not usable for day-to-day work. I got tired
of waiting for the 0.11 release and around the same time became aware of
q4e. Even in its infancy, q4e had better integration, usability, and
features than m2eclipse. We are now in the process of pushing q4e out
to all developers.

m2eclipse took 6 months to go from an unusable release (0.9) to
something nearly usable (0.10). Then another 9 months to a release that
I would consider usable enough (0.11). Then there was the botched 0.12
release (but I won't hold it against them - stuff happens). Currently
m2eclipse has only 2 issues on their roadmap. That's 2 issues out of
125 filed.

q4e has had 3 releases in 3 months and soon to be a fourth. They have a
roadmap webpage and several issues against the next release.

My point here is of momentum and vision. The developers are very
active. They have a plan and can execute.

I also think q4e fits in Eclipse's vision for collaborative
cradle-to-grave development with their buckminster integration.

I don't even understand the point of these questions. They're nice to
ask in a perfect world, but it's like asking why doesn't Eclipse drop
everything and go work on Netbeans to make the ultimate IDE? It smells
of subversive vs. subclipse all over again, except m2eclipse doesn't
even have a proposal.

I don't have any personal ties to either one - I don't know, like, or
dislike any of developers from either side nor do I have any
relationships with their employers. I simply want the best tool for the
job and would like it to come with Eclipse ;-).

Sincerely,
--
Robert Dale
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #1434 is a reply to message #1394] Sun, 25 November 2007 09:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Carlos Sanchez is currently offline Carlos Sanchez
Messages: 40
Registered: July 2009
Member
Eugene Kuleshov wrote:
> Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>
>> As I said before, the proposal is an initial point and I will update it
>> or create a wiki page with a working proposal to mention Tycho as an
>> alternative, that's not a problem.
>
> To clarify, Tycho is a set of maven plugins for building OSGi and
> Eclipse RCP modules.
>
>> The developers in Tycho, which is just you Eugene afaik,
>
> That is also not true. For the most part I am doing coordination.
> m2eclipse getting number of contributions from community
> See http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNGECLIPSE-229
>
>> were fully aware that Q4E was going to try to move in the Eclipse
> Foundation, you
>> saw the project, there were mails sent out to the maven mailing lists,
>> in the maven site,... and all stated that the objective of the plugin
>> was to be part of the Eclipse Foundation, I don't understand the
>> surprise now. I haven't seen any interest from Tycho to become an
>> Eclipse Foundation project either.
>
> Honestly, did you ask me or any of the m2eclipse users?

you previously expressed your lack of interest in getting it into the
Eclipse Foundation, if that's not the case please let us know

>
> To tell the full story to all interested community members.
> DevZuz (formerly Mergere) initially been official supporter of m2eclipse
> project, but at some point I've received an official note from one of your
> colleagues from DevZuz, that DevZuz have no interest in continuing such
> support. It is fair to not have interest to support, but then it is
> strange to fork project and then jump out to the community with such
> proposal.

Q4E was started by m2eclipse contributors that were not happy with the
status of the project.
As you said DevZuz sponsored it, was not happy either with the results
and gather other m2eclipse contributors to try to do something new,
that's one of the great benefits about open source and I don't see any
problem with that

>
>> Q4E has been careful from the beginning also to use the EPL license and
>> gather contrbution documents from the beginning and I'm concerned that
>> for Tycho the IP process could be an issue in the future if code would
>> be brought in the Eclipse Foundation.
>
> You don't need to worry about IP process for project that is not even
> been proposed to Eclipse.
> But you do need to be concerned about your own IP process for Q4E code...

One of the main goals of this proposal is to do the work inside the
Eclipse Foundation, with its processes and community, and the IP process
is a very important aspect to have into account.

>
>> Anyway I don't think there's any point in discussing which one is better
>> than the other, as you are involved in one and I in the other one, and
>> obviously we won't come to an agreement. We are both collaborating
>> making the underlying Maven libraries better for integration in the IDE,
>> and that will be good for the users of both plugins.
>
> It is not about better or worse. It is about fracturing users community.
> It happens before with Eclipse projects. There been cases when similar
> projects been able to find a common ground (i.e. JPA tools), but there
> were other cases when vendors been pushing on their own interests.
> Lack of diversity on the project is really bad sign.

Lack of diversity is not good, that's for sure, and that's why we are
bringing everybody interested in the project into this discussion.

We already have external people like Abel that has done a *lot* of work
and we welcome anybody that is willing to help. And if you or anybody
else from m2eclipse wants to get involved in the goal of making Maven a
first class citizen in the Eclipse IDE at the Eclipse Software
Foundation you are more than welcome.

>
> regards,
> Eugene
>
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #3093 is a reply to message #1427] Sun, 25 November 2007 09:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Carlos Sanchez is currently offline Carlos Sanchez
Messages: 40
Registered: July 2009
Member
I just can say +1 ;)

Robert Dale wrote:
> Aaron Digulla wrote:
>> Abel Muiño wrote:
>>
>>> On the end, I find this diversity will only provide better solutions
>>> to maven and eclipse users.
>>
>> Diversity can be synergy (if the teams work together) or challenge (if
>> they don't). From the tone in the previous posts, I'm not very hopeful
>> for synergy.
>>
>> Also, I can't see the big advantage of solving licensing issues when
>> the existing code is so close to being production quality and only
>> lacks the nod of the Eclipse lawyers.
>>
>> If you guys insist on this, then this means we all won't have anything
>> for about a year. If we could work together, we could iron out the
>> most pressing bugs in the existing work in a few weeks and then, when
>> we have a stable plugin, we could worry about IP.
>
> As an independent, third-party observer...
>
> I was trying to get maven adopted at in my organization. I'm a cli guy,
> however, I had to appease the pointy-clicky types. I initially started
> out with m2eclipse. It was not usable for day-to-day work. I got tired
> of waiting for the 0.11 release and around the same time became aware of
> q4e. Even in its infancy, q4e had better integration, usability, and
> features than m2eclipse. We are now in the process of pushing q4e out
> to all developers.
>
> m2eclipse took 6 months to go from an unusable release (0.9) to
> something nearly usable (0.10). Then another 9 months to a release that
> I would consider usable enough (0.11). Then there was the botched 0.12
> release (but I won't hold it against them - stuff happens). Currently
> m2eclipse has only 2 issues on their roadmap. That's 2 issues out of
> 125 filed.
>
> q4e has had 3 releases in 3 months and soon to be a fourth. They have a
> roadmap webpage and several issues against the next release.
>
> My point here is of momentum and vision. The developers are very
> active. They have a plan and can execute.
>
> I also think q4e fits in Eclipse's vision for collaborative
> cradle-to-grave development with their buckminster integration.
>
> I don't even understand the point of these questions. They're nice to
> ask in a perfect world, but it's like asking why doesn't Eclipse drop
> everything and go work on Netbeans to make the ultimate IDE? It smells
> of subversive vs. subclipse all over again, except m2eclipse doesn't
> even have a proposal.
>
> I don't have any personal ties to either one - I don't know, like, or
> dislike any of developers from either side nor do I have any
> relationships with their employers. I simply want the best tool for the
> job and would like it to come with Eclipse ;-).
>
> Sincerely,
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #3117 is a reply to message #1399] Tue, 27 November 2007 08:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Stuart Mcculloch is currently offline Stuart Mcculloch
Messages: 19
Registered: July 2009
Junior Member
Aaron Digulla wrote:
> On the m2eclipse side, the code to modify the pom.xml erases comments.
> There are other tools in the Maven area which suffer from the same
> problem. So a common code base to manipulate a pom.xml with the least
> disruption of the original file would help a lot of people.

FYI, if you're interested in code that can edit a POM and keep comments,
etc.
then you might want to look at some of the utility code in my Pax-Construct
project over at OPS4J - for example RoundTripXml.java preserves comments by
saving them as mock tags and restoring them later:

https://scm.ops4j.org/repos/ops4j/projects/pax/construct/mav en-pax-plugin/src/main/java/org/ops4j/pax/construct/util/Rou ndTripXml.java

it's not the most elegant solution, but it's relatively simple and does
work.
(note: the code is currently licensed under ASLv2)

Kind regards, Stuart
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #3185 is a reply to message #3117] Tue, 27 November 2007 09:55 Go to previous message
Thomas Hallgren is currently offline Thomas Hallgren
Messages: 3229
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Stuart wrote:
> it's not the most elegant solution

I've always wondered, were is the most elegant solution? In my whole career as a software engineer,
I've never found anything elegant that relates to XML ;-)

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #564005 is a reply to message #1362] Tue, 20 November 2007 23:00 Go to previous message
Abel Mui is currently offline Abel Mui
Messages: 247
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
I would say that the main advantage of q4e over the existing solutions is
its
flexibility to incorporate new features.

The maven plug-in (eclipse:eclipse) only generates/modifies eclipse files
and
can not be easily extended by third parties to configure their eclipse
plug-
in. On the other hand, q4e/iam will be ready for extension by using
extension
points.

On the other hand, m2eclipse (the eclipse plug-in) has been coded with a
monolithic design, which limits its extensibility. As noted above, since
q4e/
iam has been designed as a collection of plug-ins and extension points, it
is
far easier to add support for new features. Even third parties will be
able
to do so.

This are just my views, I hope I helped.

digulla@hepe.com (Aaron Digulla) wrote:

> On your webpages, you don't mention the other two maven integrations
> anywhere
[...]
> Don't you know about these projects or is there a specific reason why you
> add a third variant to the pool?

--
Abel Muiño - http://ramblingabout.wordpress.com
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #564010 is a reply to message #1370] Tue, 20 November 2007 23:19 Go to previous message
Eugene Kuleshov is currently offline Eugene Kuleshov
Messages: 505
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Abel Muiño wrote:
> On the other hand, m2eclipse (the eclipse plug-in) has been coded with
> a monolithic design, which limits its extensibility.
That is simply not true. m2eclipse does export plexus container, maven
core as well as its own classes to allow extensibility. The
extensibility in m2eclipse been driven by community requests (you can
search for resolved JIRA issues) and it been also proven in Maven and
Subclipse integrations that are also part of the m2eclipse project.

Anyways, I found it quite remarkable that IAM project proposal chose
to ignore existing integrations and not only didn't contact developers
of these projects but also didn't mention projects in the proposal
document at http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/iam/

regards,
Eugene

PS: just in case you don't know, I am one of the founders of Maven
integration for Eclipse project (AKA m2eclipse)
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #564037 is a reply to message #1362] Wed, 21 November 2007 04:54 Go to previous message
Carlos Sanchez is currently offline Carlos Sanchez
Messages: 40
Registered: July 2009
Member
I see the proposal as an initial work in progress document that can be
updated, and that's why this newsgroup has been created, to discuss and
improve it.

Now, I don't see much point on talking about the eclipse plugin for
Maven (mvn eclipse:eclipse), it was just a minimal way to get your Maven
projects into eclipse while there was no other option, and runs outside
Eclipse.

You mention "Maven Integration for Eclipse" which I imagine is Tycho
(formerly known as m2eclipse), I'll answer that on Eugene post in this
same thread.

Regards


Aaron Digulla wrote:
> On your webpages, you don't mention the other two maven integrations
> anywhere, namely the plugin for maven ("mvn eclipse:eclipse" on the
> commandline) and the Maven Integration for Eclipse (an Eclipse plugin).
> The latter has matured very much in the last few months.
>
> Don't you know about these projects or is there a specific reason why
> you add a third variant to the pool?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> --
> Aaron Digulla
>
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #564062 is a reply to message #1376] Wed, 21 November 2007 06:36 Go to previous message
Carlos Sanchez is currently offline Carlos Sanchez
Messages: 40
Registered: July 2009
Member
As I said before, the proposal is an initial point and I will update it
or create a wiki page with a working proposal to mention Tycho as an
alternative, that's not a problem.

The developers in Tycho, which is just you Eugene afaik, were fully
aware that Q4E was going to try to move in the Eclipse Foundation, you
saw the project, there were mails sent out to the maven mailing lists,
in the maven site,... and all stated that the objective of the plugin
was to be part of the Eclipse Foundation, I don't understand the
surprise now. I haven't seen any interest from Tycho to become an
Eclipse Foundation project either.

Q4E has been careful from the beginning also to use the EPL license and
gather contrbution documents from the beginning and I'm concerned that
for Tycho the IP process could be an issue in the future if code would
be brought in the Eclipse Foundation.

Anyway I don't think there's any point in discussing which one is better
than the other, as you are involved in one and I in the other one, and
obviously we won't come to an agreement. We are both collaborating
making the underlying Maven libraries better for integration in the IDE,
and that will be good for the users of both plugins.

Regards


Eugene Kuleshov wrote:
> Abel Muiño wrote:
>> On the other hand, m2eclipse (the eclipse plug-in) has been coded with
>> a monolithic design, which limits its extensibility.
> That is simply not true. m2eclipse does export plexus container, maven
> core as well as its own classes to allow extensibility. The
> extensibility in m2eclipse been driven by community requests (you can
> search for resolved JIRA issues) and it been also proven in Maven and
> Subclipse integrations that are also part of the m2eclipse project.
>
> Anyways, I found it quite remarkable that IAM project proposal chose to
> ignore existing integrations and not only didn't contact developers of
> these projects but also didn't mention projects in the proposal document
> at http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/iam/
>
> regards,
> Eugene
>
> PS: just in case you don't know, I am one of the founders of Maven
> integration for Eclipse project (AKA m2eclipse)
>
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #564085 is a reply to message #1388] Wed, 21 November 2007 07:33 Go to previous message
Eugene Kuleshov is currently offline Eugene Kuleshov
Messages: 505
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Carlos Sanchez wrote:

> As I said before, the proposal is an initial point and I will update it
> or create a wiki page with a working proposal to mention Tycho as an
> alternative, that's not a problem.

To clarify, Tycho is a set of maven plugins for building OSGi and
Eclipse RCP modules.

> The developers in Tycho, which is just you Eugene afaik,

That is also not true. For the most part I am doing coordination.
m2eclipse getting number of contributions from community
See http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNGECLIPSE-229

> were fully aware that Q4E was going to try to move in the Eclipse
Foundation, you
> saw the project, there were mails sent out to the maven mailing lists,
> in the maven site,... and all stated that the objective of the plugin
> was to be part of the Eclipse Foundation, I don't understand the
> surprise now. I haven't seen any interest from Tycho to become an
> Eclipse Foundation project either.

Honestly, did you ask me or any of the m2eclipse users?

To tell the full story to all interested community members.
DevZuz (formerly Mergere) initially been official supporter of m2eclipse
project, but at some point I've received an official note from one of your
colleagues from DevZuz, that DevZuz have no interest in continuing such
support. It is fair to not have interest to support, but then it is
strange to fork project and then jump out to the community with such
proposal.

> Q4E has been careful from the beginning also to use the EPL license and
> gather contrbution documents from the beginning and I'm concerned that
> for Tycho the IP process could be an issue in the future if code would
> be brought in the Eclipse Foundation.

You don't need to worry about IP process for project that is not even
been proposed to Eclipse.
But you do need to be concerned about your own IP process for Q4E code...

> Anyway I don't think there's any point in discussing which one is better
> than the other, as you are involved in one and I in the other one, and
> obviously we won't come to an agreement. We are both collaborating
> making the underlying Maven libraries better for integration in the IDE,
> and that will be good for the users of both plugins.

It is not about better or worse. It is about fracturing users community.
It happens before with Eclipse projects. There been cases when similar
projects been able to find a common ground (i.e. JPA tools), but there
were other cases when vendors been pushing on their own interests.
Lack of diversity on the project is really bad sign.

regards,
Eugene
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #564101 is a reply to message #1382] Wed, 21 November 2007 10:25 Go to previous message
Aaron Digulla is currently offline Aaron Digulla
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2009
Location: Switzerland
Senior Member
Carlos Sanchez wrote:

> I see the proposal as an initial work in progress document that can be
> updated, and that's why this newsgroup has been created, to discuss and
> improve it.

I was surprised because from looking at the website, it looked as if you
already have code written which seems strange for "initial work in
progress".

> Now, I don't see much point on talking about the eclipse plugin for
> Maven (mvn eclipse:eclipse), it was just a minimal way to get your Maven
> projects into eclipse while there was no other option, and runs outside
> Eclipse.

I'm mentioning this because the project has bugs which could be solved by
unifying the code base. It would be great if all projects which allow to
use Eclipse and Maven in the same work project would use the same code
base to manipulate the settings.

For example, "mvn eclipse:eclipse" by default sets the output folder of
the Eclipse project to "target/classes" which leads to all kinds of
strange problems in Eclipse if you have to use maven and Eclipse to the
same time (for example, to make sure that the CI server will not fail with
the code you're about to checkin).

On the m2eclipse side, the code to modify the pom.xml erases comments.
There are other tools in the Maven area which suffer from the same
problem. So a common code base to manipulate a pom.xml with the least
disruption of the original file would help a lot of people.

For these reasons, I was very surprised to see you start a third effort
from scratch.

Best Regards,

--
Aaron Digulla
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #564125 is a reply to message #1399] Wed, 21 November 2007 11:00 Go to previous message
Carlos Sanchez is currently offline Carlos Sanchez
Messages: 40
Registered: July 2009
Member
Aaron Digulla wrote:
> Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>
>> I see the proposal as an initial work in progress document that can be
>> updated, and that's why this newsgroup has been created, to discuss and
>> improve it.
>
> I was surprised because from looking at the website, it looked as if you
> already have code written which seems strange for "initial work in
> progress".

There's code already in the Q4E project, I was referring to the proposal
document. Still both are work on progress and feedback is more than welcome.

>
>> Now, I don't see much point on talking about the eclipse plugin for
>> Maven (mvn eclipse:eclipse), it was just a minimal way to get your Maven
>> projects into eclipse while there was no other option, and runs outside
>> Eclipse.
>
> I'm mentioning this because the project has bugs which could be solved
> by unifying the code base. It would be great if all projects which allow
> to use Eclipse and Maven in the same work project would use the same
> code base to manipulate the settings.
>
> For example, "mvn eclipse:eclipse" by default sets the output folder of
> the Eclipse project to "target/classes" which leads to all kinds of
> strange problems in Eclipse if you have to use maven and Eclipse to the
> same time (for example, to make sure that the CI server will not fail
> with the code you're about to checkin).
>
> On the m2eclipse side, the code to modify the pom.xml erases comments.
> There are other tools in the Maven area which suffer from the same
> problem. So a common code base to manipulate a pom.xml with the least
> disruption of the original file would help a lot of people.
>
> For these reasons, I was very surprised to see you start a third effort
> from scratch.

It's not actually from scratch, most of the Maven interaction is done
through a library, the "Maven embedder" that is common for all IDE
plugins, Eclipse, Netbeans, IntelliJ,...

The Eclipse plugin is reduced to Eclipse specific things, like classpath
containers, integration with run menu, displaying of events,...

>
> Best Regards,
>
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #564149 is a reply to message #1404] Wed, 21 November 2007 12:59 Go to previous message
Aaron Digulla is currently offline Aaron Digulla
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2009
Location: Switzerland
Senior Member
Carlos Sanchez wrote:

> It's not actually from scratch, most of the Maven interaction is done
> through a library, the "Maven embedder" that is common for all IDE
> plugins, Eclipse, Netbeans, IntelliJ,...

> The Eclipse plugin is reduced to Eclipse specific things, like classpath
> containers, integration with run menu, displaying of events,...

Hm :-/ This really sounds like "m2eclipse". So what is the difference
between your work and Eugene's?

More specifically, what is stopping you from building on top of Eugene's
work instead of doing it again? The MI4E plugin (Maven Integration for
Eclipse) is pretty close to being usable in production; many of the
instabilities have been fixed in the last month. The only nasty bug left
(as far as my workflow is concerned) is the "recursive resolving" bug.

If you would join this effort, I'm sure that we would have a production
quality plugin for the next release of Eclipse. If that would fly under
the flag of IAM (and thus would appear on the official Eclipse update
site), the better :-)

Regards,

--
Aaron
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #564169 is a reply to message #1409] Thu, 22 November 2007 09:39 Go to previous message
Abel Mui is currently offline Abel Mui
Messages: 247
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
One of the basic objectives of q4e/iam is to be under the umbrella of the
eclipse foundation.

Quoting Carlos (q4e/iam)...
Q4E has been careful from the beginning also to use the EPL license and
gather contribution documents from the beginning

And Quoting Eugene (m2eclipse)...
You don't need to worry about IP process for project that is not even
been proposed to Eclipse.

Besides the IP issues, there are important differences in the architecture
of both solutions that (in my opinion) make the effort of building q4e/iam
very valuable.

On the end, I find this diversity will only provide better solutions to
maven and eclipse users.
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #564189 is a reply to message #1414] Thu, 22 November 2007 13:06 Go to previous message
Aaron Digulla is currently offline Aaron Digulla
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2009
Location: Switzerland
Senior Member
Abel Muiño wrote:

> On the end, I find this diversity will only provide better solutions to
> maven and eclipse users.

Diversity can be synergy (if the teams work together) or challenge (if
they don't). From the tone in the previous posts, I'm not very hopeful for
synergy.

Also, I can't see the big advantage of solving licensing issues when the
existing code is so close to being production quality and only lacks the
nod of the Eclipse lawyers.

If you guys insist on this, then this means we all won't have anything for
about a year. If we could work together, we could iron out the most
pressing bugs in the existing work in a few weeks and then, when we have a
stable plugin, we could worry about IP.

Regards,

--
Aaron Digulla
"IP makes sense - if it pays your bills."
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #564207 is a reply to message #1418] Fri, 23 November 2007 04:54 Go to previous message
Philip Dodds is currently offline Philip Dodds
Messages: 39
Registered: July 2009
Member
Communities often diversify because the aims of the projects and the
motivations progress with time. While I think there is lots of great
work in both m2eclipse and q4e the Eclipse community have long wanted a
Maven plugin to be part of Eclipse platform and become an integration
point for other projects and technologies within Eclipse. While we
have probably all provided patches to the m2eclipse project over time
there was a desire to evolve that project into a different form and try
new ideas - thus the genesis of Q4E. Q4E has been around a while and
has come a long way and its move to Eclipse can be an exciting
opportunity for other developers to come with ideas, suggestions,
patches and join the project - becoming committers and working within
the open development process.

Just my .02c

P

On 2007-11-22 21:06:46 +0800, digulla@hepe.com (Aaron Digulla) said:

> Abel Muiño wrote:
>
>> On the end, I find this diversity will only provide better solutions to
>> maven and eclipse users.
>
> Diversity can be synergy (if the teams work together) or challenge (if
> they don't). From the tone in the previous posts, I'm not very hopeful
> for synergy.
>
> Also, I can't see the big advantage of solving licensing issues when
> the existing code is so close to being production quality and only
> lacks the nod of the Eclipse lawyers.
>
> If you guys insist on this, then this means we all won't have anything
> for about a year. If we could work together, we could iron out the most
> pressing bugs in the existing work in a few weeks and then, when we
> have a stable plugin, we could worry about IP.
>
> Regards,
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #564232 is a reply to message #1418] Fri, 23 November 2007 04:54 Go to previous message
Robert Dale is currently offline Robert Dale
Messages: 32
Registered: July 2009
Member
Aaron Digulla wrote:
> Abel Muiño wrote:
>
>> On the end, I find this diversity will only provide better solutions
>> to maven and eclipse users.
>
> Diversity can be synergy (if the teams work together) or challenge (if
> they don't). From the tone in the previous posts, I'm not very hopeful
> for synergy.
>
> Also, I can't see the big advantage of solving licensing issues when the
> existing code is so close to being production quality and only lacks the
> nod of the Eclipse lawyers.
>
> If you guys insist on this, then this means we all won't have anything
> for about a year. If we could work together, we could iron out the most
> pressing bugs in the existing work in a few weeks and then, when we have
> a stable plugin, we could worry about IP.

As an independent, third-party observer...

I was trying to get maven adopted at in my organization. I'm a cli guy,
however, I had to appease the pointy-clicky types. I initially started
out with m2eclipse. It was not usable for day-to-day work. I got tired
of waiting for the 0.11 release and around the same time became aware of
q4e. Even in its infancy, q4e had better integration, usability, and
features than m2eclipse. We are now in the process of pushing q4e out
to all developers.

m2eclipse took 6 months to go from an unusable release (0.9) to
something nearly usable (0.10). Then another 9 months to a release that
I would consider usable enough (0.11). Then there was the botched 0.12
release (but I won't hold it against them - stuff happens). Currently
m2eclipse has only 2 issues on their roadmap. That's 2 issues out of
125 filed.

q4e has had 3 releases in 3 months and soon to be a fourth. They have a
roadmap webpage and several issues against the next release.

My point here is of momentum and vision. The developers are very
active. They have a plan and can execute.

I also think q4e fits in Eclipse's vision for collaborative
cradle-to-grave development with their buckminster integration.

I don't even understand the point of these questions. They're nice to
ask in a perfect world, but it's like asking why doesn't Eclipse drop
everything and go work on Netbeans to make the ultimate IDE? It smells
of subversive vs. subclipse all over again, except m2eclipse doesn't
even have a proposal.

I don't have any personal ties to either one - I don't know, like, or
dislike any of developers from either side nor do I have any
relationships with their employers. I simply want the best tool for the
job and would like it to come with Eclipse ;-).

Sincerely,
--
Robert Dale
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #564278 is a reply to message #1394] Sun, 25 November 2007 09:05 Go to previous message
Carlos Sanchez is currently offline Carlos Sanchez
Messages: 40
Registered: July 2009
Member
Eugene Kuleshov wrote:
> Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>
>> As I said before, the proposal is an initial point and I will update it
>> or create a wiki page with a working proposal to mention Tycho as an
>> alternative, that's not a problem.
>
> To clarify, Tycho is a set of maven plugins for building OSGi and
> Eclipse RCP modules.
>
>> The developers in Tycho, which is just you Eugene afaik,
>
> That is also not true. For the most part I am doing coordination.
> m2eclipse getting number of contributions from community
> See http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNGECLIPSE-229
>
>> were fully aware that Q4E was going to try to move in the Eclipse
> Foundation, you
>> saw the project, there were mails sent out to the maven mailing lists,
>> in the maven site,... and all stated that the objective of the plugin
>> was to be part of the Eclipse Foundation, I don't understand the
>> surprise now. I haven't seen any interest from Tycho to become an
>> Eclipse Foundation project either.
>
> Honestly, did you ask me or any of the m2eclipse users?

you previously expressed your lack of interest in getting it into the
Eclipse Foundation, if that's not the case please let us know

>
> To tell the full story to all interested community members.
> DevZuz (formerly Mergere) initially been official supporter of m2eclipse
> project, but at some point I've received an official note from one of your
> colleagues from DevZuz, that DevZuz have no interest in continuing such
> support. It is fair to not have interest to support, but then it is
> strange to fork project and then jump out to the community with such
> proposal.

Q4E was started by m2eclipse contributors that were not happy with the
status of the project.
As you said DevZuz sponsored it, was not happy either with the results
and gather other m2eclipse contributors to try to do something new,
that's one of the great benefits about open source and I don't see any
problem with that

>
>> Q4E has been careful from the beginning also to use the EPL license and
>> gather contrbution documents from the beginning and I'm concerned that
>> for Tycho the IP process could be an issue in the future if code would
>> be brought in the Eclipse Foundation.
>
> You don't need to worry about IP process for project that is not even
> been proposed to Eclipse.
> But you do need to be concerned about your own IP process for Q4E code...

One of the main goals of this proposal is to do the work inside the
Eclipse Foundation, with its processes and community, and the IP process
is a very important aspect to have into account.

>
>> Anyway I don't think there's any point in discussing which one is better
>> than the other, as you are involved in one and I in the other one, and
>> obviously we won't come to an agreement. We are both collaborating
>> making the underlying Maven libraries better for integration in the IDE,
>> and that will be good for the users of both plugins.
>
> It is not about better or worse. It is about fracturing users community.
> It happens before with Eclipse projects. There been cases when similar
> projects been able to find a common ground (i.e. JPA tools), but there
> were other cases when vendors been pushing on their own interests.
> Lack of diversity on the project is really bad sign.

Lack of diversity is not good, that's for sure, and that's why we are
bringing everybody interested in the project into this discussion.

We already have external people like Abel that has done a *lot* of work
and we welcome anybody that is willing to help. And if you or anybody
else from m2eclipse wants to get involved in the goal of making Maven a
first class citizen in the Eclipse IDE at the Eclipse Software
Foundation you are more than welcome.

>
> regards,
> Eugene
>
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #564298 is a reply to message #1427] Sun, 25 November 2007 09:06 Go to previous message
Carlos Sanchez is currently offline Carlos Sanchez
Messages: 40
Registered: July 2009
Member
I just can say +1 ;)

Robert Dale wrote:
> Aaron Digulla wrote:
>> Abel Muiño wrote:
>>
>>> On the end, I find this diversity will only provide better solutions
>>> to maven and eclipse users.
>>
>> Diversity can be synergy (if the teams work together) or challenge (if
>> they don't). From the tone in the previous posts, I'm not very hopeful
>> for synergy.
>>
>> Also, I can't see the big advantage of solving licensing issues when
>> the existing code is so close to being production quality and only
>> lacks the nod of the Eclipse lawyers.
>>
>> If you guys insist on this, then this means we all won't have anything
>> for about a year. If we could work together, we could iron out the
>> most pressing bugs in the existing work in a few weeks and then, when
>> we have a stable plugin, we could worry about IP.
>
> As an independent, third-party observer...
>
> I was trying to get maven adopted at in my organization. I'm a cli guy,
> however, I had to appease the pointy-clicky types. I initially started
> out with m2eclipse. It was not usable for day-to-day work. I got tired
> of waiting for the 0.11 release and around the same time became aware of
> q4e. Even in its infancy, q4e had better integration, usability, and
> features than m2eclipse. We are now in the process of pushing q4e out
> to all developers.
>
> m2eclipse took 6 months to go from an unusable release (0.9) to
> something nearly usable (0.10). Then another 9 months to a release that
> I would consider usable enough (0.11). Then there was the botched 0.12
> release (but I won't hold it against them - stuff happens). Currently
> m2eclipse has only 2 issues on their roadmap. That's 2 issues out of
> 125 filed.
>
> q4e has had 3 releases in 3 months and soon to be a fourth. They have a
> roadmap webpage and several issues against the next release.
>
> My point here is of momentum and vision. The developers are very
> active. They have a plan and can execute.
>
> I also think q4e fits in Eclipse's vision for collaborative
> cradle-to-grave development with their buckminster integration.
>
> I don't even understand the point of these questions. They're nice to
> ask in a perfect world, but it's like asking why doesn't Eclipse drop
> everything and go work on Netbeans to make the ultimate IDE? It smells
> of subversive vs. subclipse all over again, except m2eclipse doesn't
> even have a proposal.
>
> I don't have any personal ties to either one - I don't know, like, or
> dislike any of developers from either side nor do I have any
> relationships with their employers. I simply want the best tool for the
> job and would like it to come with Eclipse ;-).
>
> Sincerely,
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #564321 is a reply to message #1399] Tue, 27 November 2007 08:35 Go to previous message
Stuart Mcculloch is currently offline Stuart Mcculloch
Messages: 19
Registered: July 2009
Junior Member
Aaron Digulla wrote:
> On the m2eclipse side, the code to modify the pom.xml erases comments.
> There are other tools in the Maven area which suffer from the same
> problem. So a common code base to manipulate a pom.xml with the least
> disruption of the original file would help a lot of people.

FYI, if you're interested in code that can edit a POM and keep comments,
etc.
then you might want to look at some of the utility code in my Pax-Construct
project over at OPS4J - for example RoundTripXml.java preserves comments by
saving them as mock tags and restoring them later:

https://scm.ops4j.org/repos/ops4j/projects/pax/construct/mav en-pax-plugin/src/main/java/org/ops4j/pax/construct/util/Rou ndTripXml.java

it's not the most elegant solution, but it's relatively simple and does
work.
(note: the code is currently licensed under ASLv2)

Kind regards, Stuart
Re: What about the other two Maven+Eclipse projects? [message #564364 is a reply to message #3117] Tue, 27 November 2007 09:55 Go to previous message
Thomas Hallgren is currently offline Thomas Hallgren
Messages: 3229
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Stuart wrote:
> it's not the most elegant solution

I've always wondered, were is the most elegant solution? In my whole career as a software engineer,
I've never found anything elegant that relates to XML ;-)

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
Previous Topic:Eclipse Tools or Technology section?
Next Topic:Welcome everybody
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Oct 25 09:06:11 GMT 2014

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.10698 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.2.
Copyright ©2001-2010 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software