Point 2 of the Joel Test - “Can you do the assembly in one step,” but what is the best (or generally accepted) way to achieve this? What are the advantages and disadvantages of using the IDE command line interface to create a headless build , as opposed to supporting script assembly, which is completely independent of the IDE (for example, using Ant or Maven in the case of a Java project).
I ask this question because I am experimenting with Maven, and was a little surprised to find that even with the m2eclipse plugin it is not always possible to disable Eclipse Java Builder and delegate the entire Maven build process when working on a project. It seems that if I want to transfer the project to Maven, I will have to support two equivalent but different build processes, for example, the command line build will use the DataNucleus Maven plugin to extend the JDO classes, and the IDE build will use the DataNuclues plugin for Eclipse; the command line build will use the Tomcat Maven plugin, while the IDE will use the Eclipse web tool framework. This redundancy seems unsuccessful.
I understand that NetBeans uses Ant for its build, which seems to solve this problem. But, unfortunately, I do not use either NetBeans or Ant!
EDITED TO ADD: I found that I can configure the Maven constructor in Eclipse with specific goals that trigger some of the Maven plugins that I use (for example, in my case, the “datanucleus: improve technological resources” goals take care of improving JDO, copying resources and native2ascii conversion. "This leaves the java compilation to Eclipse, but still achieves some degree of integration with Maven.
source
share