<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Maven 2 rant</title>
	<atom:link href="http://martijndashorst.com/blog/2006/02/26/maven-2-rant/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://martijndashorst.com/blog/2006/02/26/maven-2-rant/</link>
	<description>Ramblings on Java, Wicket, cats and other stuff</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:01:54 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Phillip Rhodes</title>
		<link>http://martijndashorst.com/blog/2006/02/26/maven-2-rant/#comment-105</link>
		<dc:creator>Phillip Rhodes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:01:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://martijndashorst.com/2006/02/26/maven-2-rant/#comment-105</guid>
		<description>Maven still strikes me as a solution looking
for a problem.  It adds a lot of complexity for what is, IMO, not a lot of value.  And it comes off as brittle, flaky and generally unreliable; which leads me to ask why anybody at all would use it?

I'm honestly not seeing what makes maven so compelling (or even marginally attractive) to people.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maven still strikes me as a solution looking<br />
for a problem.  It adds a lot of complexity for what is, IMO, not a lot of value.  And it comes off as brittle, flaky and generally unreliable; which leads me to ask why anybody at all would use it?</p>
<p>I&#8217;m honestly not seeing what makes maven so compelling (or even marginally attractive) to people.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.367 seconds -->
