A little background: At a conference some time ago (ommitting details, protecting innocents), a self-proclaimed Java / Open Source advocate Speaker was commenting on his build process: with a gleam of pride in the eye, he described a complicated (and "cool") system of symbolic links to keep things organized and current. End users? Downloading the most recent jars should keep you in good shape. Co-developers? Consider getting a "real" OS that supports symlinks (sorry, cygwin users, no-go).

"What about Maven??" I ask.... knowing the "right" answer. The speaker casts a wary glance my way: and without really responding, poo-poos that idea. (Since this was (one of many) off-topic digressions, I didn't pursue the thread...)

So, I thought I'd post a few notes in the ol' blog about Maven (perhaps a little series). 'Cause, once upon a time, I was in the exactly same "state of development" as that speaker. (We all walk a long path, grasshopper.)

Presently, I'm not going to do (yet another) tutorial, how-to, or rah-rah; there's plenty of those. I just want to give some context to the flood of technical information (and code) that's out there.

First, people ask, "Should I be using Maven?" The answer is pretty simple, really:

1. if it's more work not using Maven, then, yes, use Maven (as opposed to that system of symbolic links, etc). Maven quickly and cleanly handles the external dependencies of your project.
2. if you're causing more work for your users (ie, other developers, people building your project), then, please, take the time to look at Maven. I only need so many copies of Xerces/Xalan/Junit/etc on my tiny laptop development machine (namely, one)...

So, now that Maven 2.0 is in tech-review status, people will ask, "Should I be using Maven2?" Again, I'll skirt the issue (since it really depends on the project) and give some context:

• Regardless of whether you're still using Ant, Maven or Maven2, we've learned some things : Scripting Can Get Ugly. See: Thousands of lines of xml "scripting" (build.xml files in Ant; Jelly, in Maven plugins; or, maven.xml files that look suspiciously like build.xml files). Yeah, the docs always suggested writing Java (beans) and a little scripting "glue" as a means of implementing substantial new functionality... but, "it wasn't substantial when I started..."
• If you're using Maven or Ant today, see the Maven Best Practices document to be best prepared for Maven2 migration. Namely: don't write too much in maven.xml. Or, avoid one altogether. (Though, personally, I like a big ol' "Usage" statement in maven.xml as the default target, just to let people know what's going on.)

In short: if not adopting a certain technology takes more time than incorporating the technology into your project: then, by all means, sally forth. But also, consider others as well (esp. in open source community): if using a certain tool or technology is going to save others time and effort, then that will even have a greater payoff in the community as a whole.