Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    text
    copied!<blockquote> <p>Maven uses an implicit build system based on layout. It is very easy to create a default project, put things where they are expected to be and have maven build, test and create jars. At the same time, being implicit can also be constricting. You have to live with how Maven does things.</p> </blockquote> <p>Actually, you can explicitly specify where you put things in Maven. The default locations are just that, defaults, easy to override, though there's rarely a good reason to.</p> <blockquote> <p>Buckminster - It is not clear to me how Buckminster decides what to build and how to build it. It would seem that this would align with the eclipse process for doing the same. Buckminster also allows the use of ant, but it is not clear if this is a requirement. At the very least, the lifecycle is less (un?) defined for good or bad, allowing more flexibility.</p> </blockquote> <p>I think Maven tends to follow the philosophy of sensible defaults which are easily overrode.</p> <blockquote> <p>Maven is somewhat simpler configuration-wise, although it can get complex with large and multi-module projects. Maven also has Archetypes for easy creation of new projects.</p> </blockquote> <p>Maven's real strength is in its management of dependencies and this tends to shine particularly well in complex projects with multiple subprojects. It's pretty easy to define a hierarchy of subprojects and have it just work.</p> <blockquote> <p>Documentation: They are both bad. ;-)</p> </blockquote> <p>Can't disagree with that!</p>
 

Querying!

 
Guidance

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload