buildr-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com>
Subject Re: Internal error: Called Buildr.settings before buildfile located - again
Date Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:11:17 GMT
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Daniel Spiewak <djspiewak@gmail.com> wrote:

> I had actually forgotten about Buildr's integration with Gems.  It does
> make
> sense to utilize this feature, but it doesn't seem to be widely understood,
> and thus not really used.  Perhaps this is a documentation issue?  For
> example, I'm not really clear on how exactly to package a Buildr extension
> as a gem.


I don't think it's very well documented, but I was hoping people would start
using it, questions and issues would come piling in, and I can use that to
improve the documentation. Documentation, like code, much easier to fix if
you know what the bugs are :-)

And notice that we're always pushing people to write a plugin and share it
in the world, instead of trying to get it included in core. Might be time to
walk the walk, split something out of core into a separate plugin and
distribute that from Apache.


>
>
> Buildr's great strength is its extensibility.  It's incomprehensible how
> much more powerful than Maven (and even Ant) this is until you actually are
> forced to use it (there, that was a complement :-).  I think this
> extensibility should be heavily emphasized in the documentation, so that
> anyone using Buildr should at least be familiar with extensions and how
> they
> might be packaged and used.


Maybe change the 'extending' section to be more tutorial like and walk
people through various scenarios?

Assaf


>
>
> Daniel
>
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Daniel Spiewak <djspiewak@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Another item of interest is the fact that Maven plugins are dead easy
> to
> > > use.  Just stick the plugin dependency in the POM, and that plugin will
> > be
> > > emerged and available for use.  It would be nice if Buildr had a
> central
> > > extensions repo of the same ilk.  Right now, Buildr extensions (other
> > than
> > > the "official" ones) are pretty-much ad hoc .rake files that are passed
> > > from
> > > person-to-person.
> >
> >
> > How about Ruby Gems?
> > http://buildr.apache.org/more_stuff.html#using_gems
> >
> > From the lack of people complaining about it, I guess no body is using
> > it. Maybe we need to put more emphasis on it? Or figure out something
> > better?
> >
> > Assaf
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Daniel
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Daniel Spiewak <djspiewak@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >    - Download sources (there is a JIRA issue for this)
> > > >    - Artifact specification by SCM (e.g. depend on trunk/ version of
> > > >    Wicket, which will cause Buildr/Maven to checkout the artifact and
> > > invoke
> > > >    its POM, installing into local repo of build was successful)
> > > >    - *any* bizarre Maven plugin
> > > >
> > > > I honestly don't believe that the last issue is worth worrying about.
> >  As
> > > a
> > > > user, I would expect that functionality which was designed
> specifically
> > > for
> > > > Maven will indeed require maven to execute.  The Java.net artifact
> > > installer
> > > > is an example of this.  It's doable within Buildr, but it would have
> to
> > > be
> > > > done in a different way using a Buildr-specific extension (as opposed
> > to
> > > the
> > > > current Maven-specific extension/plugin).
> > > >
> > > > Source downloading and SCM-dependencies are very doable and would
> serve
> > > to
> > > > nicely round-out Buildr as a drop-in Maven replacement.  Sources are
> > > > particularly relevant for IDEs (content assist).  I've seen fewer
> > > projects
> > > > with SCM dependencies, but they do indeed exist (e.g. the Teachscape
> > > > internal application often depends upon the trunk/ version of Wicket
> > and
> > > > several of its sub-projects).
> > > >
> > > > Daniel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Alexis Midon <alexismidon@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> could you be more specific and list these things Buildr does not
> > satisfy
> > > >> out
> > > >> of the box? this could be a good source of inspiration for future
> > > >> improvements.
> > > >>
> > > >> Alexis
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Daniel Spiewak <
> djspiewak@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > In principle, I agree that the POM converter should
just work.
> > > >>  There's
> > > >> > a
> > > >> > > > lot of stuff that Maven does that Buildr doesn't immediately
> > > >> satisfy,
> > > >> > > What do you mean, do you have an example for this?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > In general, anything which requires a Maven plugin is
> unsatisfiable
> > in
> > > >> > Buildr out of the box.  That's not to say that you can't write
a
> > > little
> > > >> bit
> > > >> > of Ruby to handle it for you, but it's not as immediate as in
> Maven
> > > >> > (obviously, because the plugin was designed for Maven and not
> > Buildr).
> > > >>  For
> > > >> > example, things like java.net artifact installation.  Also, Maven
> > > does
> > > >> > things like downloading source (when available) and even checking
> > out
> > > a
> > > >> > project from an SCM, building it and installing into your local
> > repo.
> > > >> > Again, Buildr is *capable* of all these things, but that doesn't
> > mean
> > > it
> > > >> > fully supports them out of the box.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Daniel
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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