Apache Maven 1.0 Released

darthcamaro writes "internetnews.com is running a story on the release of Apache Maven 1.0 this week. Maven is a very robust project-management and project comprehension tool that is unparalleled in either open source or proprietary software. 'Maven has a long history of pushing out beta after beta, so this is definitely an important release,' Jason Van Zyl, Maven architect release manager, told internetnews.com. 'For users it means that they will have something reliable now for their production builds.' From some of the comments that Van Zyl makes in the story though, it look like the upcoming 2.0 version will be the real killer app, though 1.0 is certainly nothing to sneeze at either..."

Comments

Link to project

[Inominate]

Why do stories like this so often leave out a link to the actual project?

http://maven.apache.org/

Re:Link to project

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a project management tool.

It's a Java programming project management tool.

There is a huge difference between the two things.

Re:Link to project

[legenx]

Maven is a command-line tool. The screenshots are not that impressive...:)

If you know Ant (Java much improved version of make), Maven is like Ant on steroid. Maven handles intra/inter-project dependencies, project site documentation generation, unit testing, code coverage, packaging, deployment, and there's even a plugin to test whether your code conform to the coding standard.

One of the major strength of Maven is that it manages the various jar (library) dependencies in a seemless way. Multiple subprojects do not need to duplicate the jars that they depend on. You can even throw multiple subprojects into a "reactor" and it'll build them in the correct order based on their dependency graph.

It's sad that it's for Java only. I wish there's something like Maven for C/C++, or even C#, but so far I don't think I find anything yet.

definition

[zogger]

I would imagine there are a lot of people (like me) who had *no idea* what this is or what it is for. Here is the one paragraph definition of it FTA:

"Maven defines itself as a project-management and project-comprehension tool. Its project object model (POM) controls the development and management of a project. The POM controls builds, document creation, site publication and distribution publication and can be stored in an XML file. Maven also provides a set of tools to enable developers to automatically generate a number of critical items, such as source metrics; mailing, developer and dependency lists; software development process documentation; change logs based directly on source repository; and source cross-references."

In other words, it looks like a cross between the head cheese coding despot on any development project mailinglist and an automated webmaster thingee.... a management worker bot whatever.. it's a....

I still don't know what it is :(

Re:definition

[MythMoth]

Let me clarify.

It's a great big pain in the butt.

Re:definition

[poot_rootbeer]

I still don't know what it is :(

Imagine a superset of `ant build` that not only compiles your binaries, but also generates your documentation and install and test everything you need to run your application out-of-the-box in a single step.

Re:definition

[M1FCJ]

If you download the maven source, with a minimal set of configuration, you have something going because Maven is used to build Maven.

If you are building a new project, it takes a couple of hours on a sizeable project, if it is quite complex, it will take some time to incorporate everything. You can't build a complicated compile/tool chain without spending some time.

It is more visual compared to ant, more interactive. Ant is just a workhorse, this has some estethics. On the other hand, if you are happy with ant, maven doesn't add anything new.

If you are going to start a new project, give Maven a try. If you already have something mature based on complicated Ant scripts, moving to Maven won't add any value to your development system.

Re:definition

[MythMoth]

Hmm... I seem to have been modded funny for that, but actually I kind of mean it.

Having tried to use a couple of projects that depended upon it, I found that maven really was quite painful to use, and the projects seemed less "clean" than ones built by Ant with greater constraints on the library versions they can use.

Worse yet, trying to build a project that's been mavenized when you're subsisting on 28.8K thinband is a nightmare. Maven's repository may seem like a great idea, but it's a terrible one for anyone behind a restrictive proxy, or otherwise unable to take advantage of this "feature".

If you are choosing between a project based on maven and one based on Ant then I'd recommend the Ant one. Maven has no features that I consider compelling over and above Ant, but it is much more complicated, and it does introduce problems for some users' circumstances.

Incredibly useful build tool

[d-rock]

We have started using Maven for in-house development and it really simplifies things. Being able to declare dependencies on libraries, etc, and have Maven go and grab the correct versions during build is cool enough, but all of the reporting and site building tools are really incredible. The PHBs were very impressed with the code analysis reports that it generates, and the CVS annotation of code is very nice for our internal sites. It takes a little getting used to, but if you've used Ant, you're halfway there.

Derek

Maven Bile

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bileblog has an alternative view on Maven.

Re:Maven Bile

[malloc]

That could win the best-FUD-of-the-year award. Full of scathing remarks, but nary an actual hard fact in sight.

-Malloc

Re:Maven Bile

[Knight2K]

I agree with some other posters here that the BileBlog posts on Maven don't really offer clear reasons why Maven is bad. If you read enough of his posts on Maven you can pull out some of his general issues:

1. The auto-generated website has a lot of pointless information that most people don't care about.
2. The language it's implemented in is crap.
3. The project favors features over stability.
4. Maven highly constrains project layouts
5. New releases break stuff that worked in old releases

For the record, I don't think the idea of Maven is bad. The sexiest feature in my mind is declaring library dependencies by name and version number and having Maven pull down the required library from a central repository. No more cryptically named jars checked into version control. Upgrading the library is as simple as changing the version number. Inter-project dependencies are simplified since Maven publishes build artifacts to the repository for you. Other projects can just treat your project like another library dependency. Think of it like APT for Java builds.

I find myself writing the same constructs over and over in Ant. There really aren't that many ways of build a J2EE application. Maven takes care of a lot of the tedious details by letting you specify at a high-level what you want to build; it takes care of building classpaths and assembling pieces into an EAR file. You can just get on with the code.

I also don't have a significant problem with some of the constraints Maven puts on projects. It's a pain when you have something specific in mind or are trying to retrofit a project, but it is kinda nice to be able to look at any Java project and instantly grasp where to find things. Enforcing a directory layout may constrain the developer but increases transparency. The GNU projects generally follow a standard project layout with Autoconf support. I personally would not want to give up ./configure;make;make install. Standardizing project layouts helps make ease of use like that possible. Whether Maven picked a good standard or not is another matter.

Where I agree with Hani's blog is:

1. The implementation language sucks. Using XML as the syntax of a scripting language has to be the worst idea ever. I had to go in and tweak a few Maven plugins when it was in beta and I still have nightmares.
2. Compatibility was broken between releases. I know that for a while Maven was in beta, but the beta cycles were so long that people assumed it was 'good enough', like JDOM. At a few points, I thought the project was dead. So it was majorly irritating when simple things broke when upgrading releases. The BileBlogger rightfully points out that betas should be about stabilizing releases, not doing a lot of feature fiddling

I've been thinking about bringing it in for an effort I am currently working on. A lot of its features would match my needs. The issues that Hani identified however, especially the implementation language, are holding me back.

There is also the fact that Ant is very well known. Many people are capable of fixing issues with Ant scripts. Extending Ant for custom tasks is also fairly trivial. I wouldn't really want to write a Maven plugin. And debugging the damn thing is tough since most of the logic is hidden.

Not the only thing left out: it's for Java only

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, the headline also left out the rather key information that this tool is for Java projects only.

I was quite looking forward to a revolutionary project management tool ... alas, this one is yet another myopic product of the "Java is the whole universe" generation.

Java is great ... but there is a larger world out there you know.

Check out JAM for Maven

[alphafoo]

I started using Maven about a month ago, just to see what all the fuss was about. There is a lot to it, and it can be overwhelming. But there is a good middle ground between roll-your-own-ant and Maven, and it's called Javagen Ant Modules (JAM) and it's here.

What I got from JAM that is useful to me:

• dependency management automatically downloads library JARs for me during build.
• common build.xml file and framework, so all my Maven projects have same basic structure.
• Reduced learning curve so I could get going without learning everything about Maven all at once.
• access to lots of cool Maven "plugins" like maven-eclipse that integrate the whole thing into my Eclipse3.0 setup.

Re:Not the only thing left out: it's for Java only

[Kingpin]

Is it really Java only? It's written in Java yes, it supports many common Java paradigms - would it not be fairly simple to use doxygen rather than javadoc, gcc rather than javac, nunit rather than junit etc etc.

Ant allows this, and I understand Maven to be an evolution of build tools, so I don't see why it should not be project-development-technology-agnostic.

Re:Not the only thing left out: it's for Java only

[radish]

Not true. It uses ant, ant can do anything (think of it as a replacement for make). People here build C, C++ and a bunch of other stuff using ant. With the correct modules you wrap all that up (with your Java components) into one nicely managed project.

Sure it's written _in_ Java, but it's not just _for_ Java (but naturally, the user community is heavily biased in that direction).

Screenshot

[_xeno_]

C:\maven-1.0>bin\maven
.__ __
| \/ |__ _Apache__ ___
| |\/| / _` \ V / -_) ' \ ~ intelligent projects ~
|_| |_\__,_|\_/\___|_||_| v. 1.0

BUILD SUCCESSFUL
Total time: 1 seconds
Finished at: Fri Jul 16 17:34:27 EDT 2004

---

It's a console app. You call it and it builds "stuff", much like Ant does. I don't really know much more than that right now, though, so no complicated questions please. :)

(Oh, and that "screenshot" is messed up, I had to add a "." to make sure it stayed indented properly, Slashdot messed it up otherwise.)

Re:Not the only thing left out: it's for Java only

[clamatius]

It's technically possible but part of the point of the thing is that you don't have to spend forever writing build scripts to get going. So once there's a set of users writing plugins with better support for (e.g.) C# and C++, sure it'll be agnostic.

Right now it's effectively a Java tool since most of the plugins are for Java (jar, javac, javadoc, junit, etc).

Re: The PHBs were very impressed

[Morgaine]

The PHBs were very impressed ...

I didn't follow whether this was intended as praise or criticism.

A different opinion

[joeykiller]

Not everyone seems to be fond of Maven. This guy lists both pros and cons with Maven, but lands on the negative side.

I havent used Maven myself, but since this was mostly a very positive announcement, I guess it cant hurt to point to another point of view.

Re:Oh, you for mean for programming projects only

[tntguy]

This isn't the project you are looking for.

Re:Not the only thing left out: it's for Java only

[nettdata]

Sadly, the headline also left out the rather key information that this tool is for Java projects only.


Actually, no, it's not. We use it to build C code, install and configure Oracle and DB2 databases, automate some OpenSSL stuff, put together PHP sites, and rsync stuff all over the place. We also use it for managing our main Java app as well.

Just the tool is Java-based.

It is a build tool .

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a Build Tool, not a "project management tool".

What it builds are software programs.

What it was designed for and is good at is building the software called "Apache". The more a software development project looks like the Apache one, the more likly it is a useful tool for that project.

You want a management tool. This is NOT it.

You want a nonsoftware project tool. This is NOT it.

You want a build tool for a research software project, say in AI or written in LISP. This is NOT IT.

You want a build tool for far flung contributors writting code in Java (or java like language) with all the structural details about the project already known. Bingo!!! This is the tool for you.

Re:Its a love it or hate it project

[svetlin]

Unfortunately most people seem to hate it.
Maven mailing list(s) is one of the most active ones, with +50 messages a day. Most articles and comments at ServerSide, IBM DeveloperWorks and elsewhere are quite favorable toward it. Many major projects (e.g. Geronimo) are using it.

I dont like supposed development aides thats want to tell me how I should organise everything to suit its quirks rather than my preferences.
Maven follows well established practices (e.g. directory structure) from the Apache Jakarta projects. Accustomed to Ant's freedom, I also was unhappy with some defaults/behaviors initially, but gradually all of them made sense.

Its really irritating when this demands vast amounts of configuration to achieve
I interpret this to mean that attempting to implement your quirks in Maven took vast amount of configuration to achieve, and have no objection to that.
Another massive configuration effort is required when an existing complex and rather quirky Ant build of a large application is migrated to Maven (as it was in my case, I should mention that I wrote also the Ant build ;-)).
But starting with Maven on a common medium-sized app is relatively easy when using the GenApp plugin.

requires a scripting language who creator has apologised for creating an abomination
I agree here. I also do not like the idea of executable XML, of using XML as a programming language. Please note, however, that Jelly is an interface for tags in Maven used to implement plugins. In principle, any mechanism for embedding tags will do (and there is significant work in this direction for v2 AFAIK).

So, apart from personal taste, Maven is quite a solid production-ready project build and comprehension tool.

--
Svetlin