Comments on: Maven 2.0.9 dependency import and Continuum 1.1 http://lorands.com/2008/05/maven-209-dependency-import-and-continuum-11/ Thoughts on Software Development… Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:15:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: lsomogyi http://lorands.com/2008/05/maven-209-dependency-import-and-continuum-11/comment-page-1/#comment-2226 lsomogyi Sun, 25 May 2008 21:55:26 +0000 http://lorand.somogyi.name/?p=32#comment-2226 Yes Abel! The intention was to get deep integration, to have as much as we could width minimal configuration and tweaking. - We choose Continuum over the others mainly because the lack of time. The configuration of other CIs were more than we could afford, and Continuum worked just fine at the first look, and needed no extra tweaking. It caught us with "release" feature too. We even managed to <a href="http://lorand.somogyi.name/2008/03/continuum-11-with-ldap-and-the-roles-hack/" rel="nofollow">integrate it with our LDAP...</a> For me, it looks like "deep integration" equals "tightly coupled" as long as you do not have a standardized interface. - As there is only one Maven, - which is still in strong evolution, still searching paths -, there is no standard interface... Although I can imaging a loose coupling with deep integration through Maven CLI. On the other issue on feature in a bugfix release, I agree with you. It wan not a bugfix, so it should go to 2.1, although it is really powerful feature. - Which I personally really like, because this helps us with release/deploy related tasks. Yes Abel! The intention was to get deep integration, to have as much as we could width minimal configuration and tweaking. – We choose Continuum over the others mainly because the lack of time. The configuration of other CIs were more than we could afford, and Continuum worked just fine at the first look, and needed no extra tweaking. It caught us with “release” feature too. We even managed to integrate it with our LDAP…

For me, it looks like “deep integration” equals “tightly coupled” as long as you do not have a standardized interface. – As there is only one Maven, – which is still in strong evolution, still searching paths -, there is no standard interface… Although I can imaging a loose coupling with deep integration through Maven CLI.

On the other issue on feature in a bugfix release, I agree with you. It wan not a bugfix, so it should go to 2.1, although it is really powerful feature. – Which I personally really like, because this helps us with release/deploy related tasks.

]]> By: Abel Muiño http://lorands.com/2008/05/maven-209-dependency-import-and-continuum-11/comment-page-1/#comment-2225 Abel Muiño Sun, 25 May 2008 20:32:29 +0000 http://lorand.somogyi.name/?p=32#comment-2225 The choice would depend on what tight coupling can provide that loose coupling does not. I suspect that the intention is not to have maven "tighly coupled" but "deeply integrated". What's a bit weird is adding features in a bugfix release (2.0.9 poms have features that can make them incompatible with 2.0.8). This makes hard for integrators to know when a new maven maintenance release will cause problems on their products. The choice would depend on what tight coupling can provide that loose coupling does not.

I suspect that the intention is not to have maven “tighly coupled” but “deeply integrated”.

What’s a bit weird is adding features in a bugfix release (2.0.9 poms have features that can make them incompatible with 2.0.8). This makes hard for integrators to know when a new maven maintenance release will cause problems on their products.

]]>