buildr-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mat Schaffer <>
Subject Re: buildr usability
Date Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:58:15 GMT
I don't think the JVM startup is that much of an issue especially  
considering that we're comparing buildr to ant and maven which also  
incur similar start-up delays. +1 for a simple unzip-and-run  

On Oct 20, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Daniel Spiewak wrote:

> This is a really great idea!  I'm actually surprised that none of us  
> thought of this earlier.  JRuby is very easy to distribute in a self- 
> contained fashion, so this sort of packaging is not only possible  
> but very natural.  The only disadvantage would be the performance  
> hit carried by JRuby and really the JVM's slow startup.  I think  
> this is probably palletable though, especially given the convenience  
> of this approach.
> Daniel
> On Oct 20, 2009, at 7:47 AM, "Ittay Dror" <>  
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Regarding the next buildr version, I think the biggest issue should  
>> be
>> being able to quickly start using buildr.
>> My experience is that BuildR is great for me as a build developer. It
>> allows me to do in several lines of code things that would take a lot
>> more in Ant and that I probably wouldn't even try with Maven.
>> However, when it comes to other developers that just want to  
>> compile the
>> code, the procedure to start working with BuildR is just an obstacle
>> they need to go through. And given that it is not as standard as  
>> Maven
>> or Ant, it is something new to install.
>> Right now, I have 3 people trying to use BuildR without success. The
>> first uses linux and so installed the ruby package but had  
>> segmentation
>> faults with java 1.6 (which we must use), so he needed to compile  
>> ruby
>> from source (not a smooth experience for a java developer coming from
>> windows). After compiling and installing, trying to upload, he got an
>> error about not being able to require openssl. Now, 'require' is  
>> not a
>> known term to a java developer... the reason for the error was that  
>> at
>> the time of compilation he didn't have libssl-dev installed. So he
>> needed to install it, re-generate the Makefile for ext/openssl and  
>> then
>> install it. This was a long, un-Java process to go through...
>> Two other users had issues because they couldn't get BuildR to  
>> install
>> on Mac. RJB could not find the ruby headers. We couldn't resolve this
>> issue, so they needed to resort to using another machine (!)
>> Of course there's the choice of using JRuby. However, It will still
>> require multiple steps (installing jruby then buildr) and I'm sure it
>> will have its own issues.
>> What it boils down to is bad first impression with BuildR.
>> I want to suggest that BuildR will be provided as a self-contained
>> package. It could be jruby with all gems that can be extracted some
>> placed and used, but optimally, it will also be packages per OS  
>> (can be
>> .tar.gz of binaries), which will help performance when running the
>> builds. An additional feature is proper inspection of the environment
>> before running (something like 'require 'openssl' rescue puts "please
>> make sure you have openssl installed, on linux install libssl and on
>> mac...").
>> Regards,
>> Ittay
>> P.s., I can try to accomplish this if the idea sounds good.

View raw message