buildr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tammo van Lessen <tvanles...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ApacheCon / Thoughtworks TechRadar
Date Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:46:25 GMT
Hi Michel,

I did have a look at lock_jar and I really like the idea. Since I like on
one hand Mavens magic resolution for bootstrapping a projects, on the other
hand I also want to have the control over the dependencies. What I usually
do is running something like

pp transitive(LOGBACK).map {|a| a.to_spec}

and copy the result into my buildfile. lockjar could automate this for me,
right?

However, it was difficult to me to grok how a real-world multi-project
buildr file would look like. If I'm not mistaken, I would need to add all
dependencies separately to the projects using the lock_jar dsl? I'd love if
there would be a more unobtrusive way like saying

compile.with project('api'), lock(AXIS2, AXIOM, OPENJPA)
test.with lock(TESTNG)

and lockjar would use this information to create the lockfile
(automatically if not there, otherwise on demand) and return a resolved set
of dependencies. The lock method could also take an optional group
parameter in order to define independent resolution groups. Still open
would be the question how excludes or pinned versions could be expressed.

Do you think such an integration would useful or feasible?

Thanks,
  Tammo


On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Michel Guymon <michael.guymon@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I figure I would pile onto the Buildr vs Maven discussion, this will be a
> little non sequitur.
>
> What I have been doing is using Maven for project info, mostly defining
> dependencies and where to deploy to. This is what Maven is actually good
> at, project markup. The perk is all the existing tools can continue to work
> with the Project's POM. Everything else I do is handled by Buildr. Using
> LockJar[1] to import the deps and deployment info from the POM, I am able
> to build and deploy my artifacts from Buildr.
>
> I find this is the sweet spot, being able to live in a Maven world but
> still able to build my artifacts the way I need to with Buildr. God help me
> if I ever have to use and XML build tool again. . .
>
> thanks,
> Michael
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/mguymon/**lock_jar#buildr-integration<https://github.com/mguymon/lock_jar#buildr-integration><
> https://github.com/mguymon/**lock_jar<https://github.com/mguymon/lock_jar>
> >
>
>
> On 11/09/2012 10:04 PM, Peter Donald wrote:
>
>> Huya,
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Tammo van Lessen <tvanlessen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> First, I got a Buildr talk accepted at ApacheCon EU in Sinsheim, Germany,
>>> which I held just yesterday.
>>>
>> congrats!
>>
>>  I got a lot of positive feedback, people seem
>>> to like the buildr idea although it also seems that Maven improved since
>>> the inception of Buildr and some things are less worse. The most visible
>>> argument against buildr was, however, that people are used to use Maven
>>> and
>>> that, if they want to make their project accessible for a broad audience,
>>> they think they'd need to stick to Maven.
>>>
>> That does seem to be a common view.
>>
>>  I guess Gradle tries to address
>>> this issue by providing a "gradle-wrapper", which is a small jar file
>>> along
>>> a shell script that you can include into your project and that will
>>> bootstrap a gradle installation automatically. I also figured, that still
>>> many Java developers don't have rubies at hand and don't know how to
>>> easily
>>> install a gem.
>>>
>> And one stage, Antoine was working on the "all-in-one" distribution
>> that essentially bundled a version of jruby with buildr and all it's
>> dependencies in one easy installer. I wonder if we could work on this
>> to ease adoption of buildr for the casual user.
>>
>> Where I work we use Chef (http://www.opscode.com/chef/) extensively
>> and they release their tool in "omnibus" editions that are essentially
>> a complete version of ruby for n-different platforms. They preinstall
>> the chef gems in the ruby they distribute but they make sure that the
>> only things that are added to the path are the che executables. I
>> wonder if this would be a good thing for us to consider?
>>
>>  Second, I stumbled upon ThoughtWorks TechRadar [2]. In particular, I
>>> liked
>>> the first paragraph of the Tools section ;)
>>>
>> It is kinda neat. Possibly the best thing we can do is to increase
>> awareness ... I think your approach to giving a talk is a good idea.
>>
>>
>


-- 
Tammo van Lessen - http://www.taval.de

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message