| Re: [hudson-dev] [Hudson-Dev] Re: Why are we using hpi:create instead of mavne archetypes? |
Hi
If you are right in that there is no technical reason that is great news, because I think it matters a lot for the approachability of Hudson.
Firstly it is nonstandard which mean it is yet another thing a new developer needs to learn and it excludes us from integrating with various IDEs.
Second and more importantly the hpi option only allows us to create a single template namely the builder plugin. This is really bad as the most difficult thing about plugin development is finding the right extension point and using it correctly.
By correctly I mean knowing which callbacks are called when and how, plus how to integrate with the jelly files.Also things like correct way to use descriptors,etc..All things you and I have (mostly) worked out but which are daunting for a new developer (esp given our current level of documentation)
Therefore my suggestion would be to deprecate the hpi way and work on creating some high quality archetypes, maybe even one per extension point.
Best regards
Henrik
2012/1/16 Manfred Moser <manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> I would say it is purely a symptom of
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here
> but I am speaking from assumptions only. In the end it does not really
> matter what you use since the project creation is only done once.
> Personally I actually use neither most of the time and just hack
> together stuff from another existing project and modify things
> manually and I tend to be fast that way too..
>
> manfred
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Henrik Lynggaard Hansen
> <henrik@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Subject really says it all, why are we using hpi:create to create a
>> blank plugin instead of just using standard maven archetypes.
>>
>> I mean is there a technical reason or is it only history?
>>
>> Best regards
>> Henrik