Apache Maven is an open source build automation tool.
N/A
CloudBees Codeship
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
Codeship from CloudBees is a build automation platform from the Austrian company of the same name.
N/A
Pricing
Apache Maven
CloudBees Codeship
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Apache Maven
CloudBees Codeship
Free Trial
No
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Apache Maven
CloudBees Codeship
Considered Both Products
Apache Maven
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Apache Maven
Ant is useful if your build is heavily based on customs scripts running in the right order. Maven greatly simplifies the process to keep track of and download build dependencies compared with Apache Ant. If your build is based on multiple custom scripts running in a specific …
We evaluated many options to automate our build process including Apache Maven, Jenkins, Octopus Deploy and Azure DevOps Server. We found Apache Maven to be the easiest to use by far. We like the ability to customize our build process for individual departments. Apache Maven …
If there are competitor products out there, I've never heard of them. This is the solution for Java dependency management. From my experience, the alternative is "no solution, create your own."
Ant, Maven's opposing framework, is often a point of comparison. Although Ant does not require formal conventions, it is procedural in the sense that you must tell Ant exactly what to do and when. It also lacks a lifecycle, along with goal definition and dependencies. Maven, on …
It has a project object module and pre-defined structure that is better than Make and running Ant scripts for builds. There is fairly good support from the online open source community. Documentation from Apache is also very good.
Codeship is easier to use than Jenkins because it does not require you to set up your own server, and it provides a large amount of out-of-the-box integrations for version control systems and cloud environments. AWS CodePipeline is native to AWS and cannot deploy applications …
Codeship has been easier for our devops team to work with as far as making delivery plans and build scripts. Anecdotally, it has been more stable over time, cutting down on time investigating why some random part of the delivery process has broken. I am not sure why this is, …
We have been using Codeship for a few years, and what we like is that it's very clear what is built and when. We usually only have one-liners for any configuration option (build, test, deploy) and this way all changes to the build are managed in the version control system and …
Our company uses Jenkins for all internal deployment processes for one very important reason - it's hosted internally. But Codeship is great for personal use - it has intuitive UI, easy setup and tons of integrations.
Back in those days, we didn't know about Gitlab, and Bitbucket didn't provide a CI pipeline. Jenkins is just too much for the simple tasks we wanted to achieve, besides, we didn't have a dedicated server for the sole purpose of having our code pipelined though continuous …
Building and automating packaging of software can be a challenging task. As the complexity of the project grows so do the dependencies on third-party artifacts. Using Maven we can define and manage the project structure centrally and it helps improve overall build times.
Codeship is very well suited to teams that have specialized devops members along with other specialized developers. It lets the other developers focus on what they do best, without having to learn another technology stack. This has cut down on a lot of headaches at our company with developers needing to deploy code to various different hosting services across different content management systems. The experience to push code is essentially the same for a developer no matter what the underlying technology is
One of the issues with building software using Apache Maven is that its cache resolution is not optimal. It pulls down all the artifacts onto the developer's local machine and can sometimes result in conflicts.
The build process can vary in time and gets progressively longer as the project's complexity increases.
The overall usability of Apache Maven is very good to us. We were able to incorporate it into our company's build process pretty quickly. We deployed it to multiple teams throughout the entire enterprise. We got good feedback from our developers stating that Apache Maven has simplified their build process. It also allowed to to standardize the build process for the entire enterprise, thus ensure that each development team is using the same, consistent process to build code.
I can't speak to the support, as I've never had issues. Apache Maven "just works," and errors were user errors or local nexus errors. Apache Maven is a great build/dependency management tool. I give it a 9/10 because occasionally the error message don't immediately indicate a solution...but again, those errors were always user or configuration errors, and the Maven documentation is extensive, so I don't find fault in Maven, but in its users.
Ant is useful if your build is heavily based on customs scripts running in the right order. Maven greatly simplifies the process to keep track of and download build dependencies compared with Apache Ant. If your build is based on multiple custom scripts running in a specific order there is a lot of overhead in Maven compared to Apache Ant.
Codeship is easier to use than Jenkins because it does not require you to set up your own server, and it provides a large amount of out-of-the-box integrations for version control systems and cloud environments. AWS CodePipeline is native to AWS and cannot deploy applications reliably to other cloud environments such as GCP or Azure.
We have a few small projects with different developers and Codeship shows everyone clearly, if something work, or if it doesn't.
In one small project with a team of three developers, we have configured two builds and it takes 2-5 minutes for everyone on the team to push changes to an infrastructure handling a little over 3M users.