ode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kurt T Stam <kurt.s...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: build failed in trunk - I wish we had maven
Date Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:22:20 GMT
Sounds good, I'll talk to Jeff, Greg and whoever else is interested, and 
see if we can work on this together. Since neither one of us has commit 
rights yet, we may just work on a copy of the ODE-2.0 trunk in the 
Riftsaw SVN until things start working, and we can then supply the patch 


Alexis Midon wrote:
> As a developer, my experiences with Maven were painful and time consuming.
> Maven gets in your way anytime you need to do a task as simple as moving a
> file, assuming you find a plugin for it. If you don't, well, you have to
> write some ant tasks or your own plugin... where a simple ruby line or a
> nicely integrated Rake task does the job.
> As an ODE developer, I enjoy not to have to deal with xml files all over the
> place, plugin release management, transitive dependencies. And I love fast,
> repeatable and consistent builds. Personal tastes I guess...
> Anyway we could discuss endlessly about Maven pros and cons :)
> If you guys want to contribute a Maven build, that's fine. Your pom's will
> be much welcomed. You could imagine having both as long as it does not break
> the current build and that we have people to maintain them.
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Greg Lucas <greg.lucas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My concerns are related to the general adoption of Maven and the growing
>> set of tools that support it.  I would suspect that:
>>  - ODE developers and users are working with multiple projects.
>>  - Many (most?) potential ODE developers/users are already using maven; or
>> are investing in it because of other projects.
>>  - Some of those potential developers/users have no prior experience with
>> Ruby and no other requirement to invest in it.
>> My specific scenario involves adding ODE to an existing environment that is
>> used to build/test multiple projects (Apache and otherwise - including
>> Karaf, ServiceMix, CXF, Camel, etc). All of these projects have Maven2
>> builds. The incremental cost of adding a new maven-based project to the
>> environment is substantially lower than adding something new. I have seen
>> customers maintaining similar environments to build open-source and in-house
>> projects, so this is not unique.
>> Some pain points:
>> 1. Getting ruby/buildr running builds/tests on multiple platforms and JVMs
>> (Win/Linux/Unix, 32/64-bit, JDK 1.5/1.6, etc)
>> When I started looking at this ODE 1.x required native ruby (installed &
>> compiled for various platforms) and buildr 1.2.10. I had numerous issues
>> getting that to work - the buildr gem wouldn't install because of circular
>> dependencies, the build failed to run with jdk 1.6, etc. Getting the 1.x and
>> trunk branches on the latest buildr version helps, as does using jruby
>> (although I have an sftp upload issue with jruby).
>> 2. Releases that span multiple projects need to ensure consistent 3rd-party
>> dependencies.
>> Representing dependencies with a common model is required to do any
>> meaningful cross-project validation. I'd echo Kurt's point that projects
>> that want to consume ODE artifacts are more likely to know the pom model.
>> While creating the OSGi bundle for the JBI component I  used svn blame to
>> figure out why some transitive dependencies were being used (some no longer
>> necessary), rather than simply being able to view the dependency tree.
>> Eclipse and IntelliJ understand poms and make it easy to import maven
>> projects. Buildr can generate IDE-specific projects, but it's not quite the
>> same: in IntelliJ I can also grab the pom for a dependency, create a module,
>> and start building against that module rather than the jar in my local repo.
>> 3. There are many existing plugins and tools to solve common problems
>> For example adding an OSGi bundle for ODE could use the maven-bundle-plugin
>> which leverages the maven dependency model to do things that bnd does not -
>> e.g. dealing with test and provided scopes. Having direct access to Ruby
>> provides lots of flexibility, but in many cases I'd rather use an existing
>> stable tool than write my own.
>> Individual concerns can be addressed, I'm happy to learn more ruby and
>> contribute to buildr. But my overall experience so far has been spending
>> just as much time with the build system as with ODE itself - effort toward a
>> likely result of one project out of many that uses its own dev
>> infrastructure and requires continual special-case handling.
>> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:54:40 -0500, Kurt T Stam <kurt.stam@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>  I was going to comment on http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE-729,
>>> but I think having discussions
>>> on the mailing list works better then in jira. So I'm going to add this
>>> thread and add 2 more pain-points
>>> 1. There can be issues between ruby and java if somehow the bit versions
>>> used are out of sync (32 vs 64 bit). It simply blows up without much detail
>>> as to what happened. So much easier to use 1 environment (java). Yeah I know
>>> you will tell me to use jruby.
>>> 2. Adhereing to an Apache standard build tool and environment. Maven
>>> forces a common layout, build and release process.
>>> 3. Tooling support. I can get my IDE setup easily using a maven-eclipse
>>> plugin.
>>> 4. Dependency management. Projects that consume ODE (i.e. Riftsaw) need to
>>> know the dependency, compile, runtime and test. Maven does this for me and
>>> it makes it easy for me to display it, again though plugins into my IDE.
>>> 5. I have a hard time running multiple buildr versions. I have 1.2.10
>>> working now, but as soon as I also install 1.3.x, then 1.2.10 breaks as some
>>> gem dependency gets skrewed up. Which forces me to painstakingly remove gems
>>> until 1.2.10 works again.
>>> 6. I like a minimal build; have it just work, by convention of the layout
>>> of the project, maven done right does not 'get-in-the-way', and I only have
>>> to worry about bugs in one build tool; not in two.
>>> 7. Check the mailing list to see how many people having issues getting
>>> their build going.
>>> thx,
>>> --Kurt
>>> Jeff Yu wrote:
>>>> here are couple issues that I had (before I talked about my current task)
>>>> 1. I knew buildr is quite new, but the adoption is really an issue. The
>>>> adoption means the plugins, and the work that I need to do. I remembered
>>>> that one task that I was working on is to try to push the artifacts into
>>>> maven snapshot repository, which is webdav protocol. Simply I just
>>>> couldn't
>>>> find a 'just works' plugin for me to do so. In the end, I used the
>>>> maven-ant-task to do the publish, as I had a problem by using buildr
>>>> against
>>>> our repo, I tried the way as Alex Boisvert pointed out in buildr
>>>> maillist,
>>>> couldn't work against our repo, quite frustrating.
>>>> 2. It requires developer to learn Ruby. I know it sounds interesting to
>>>> learn a new language, but sometimes I just want to make my build system
>>>> just
>>>> works and easily been understood.
>>>> 3. It also depends on specific library version. If you go to the
>>>> .gem/ruby/1.8/gems/buildr-1.3.5/addon/buildr directory, take xmlbeans.rb
>>>> as
>>>> an example, it depends on a specific xmlbeans version, what if I used a
>>>> different version in my own project, does it require me to update this to
>>>> make these version consistent. same goes to the hibernate.rb etc.
>>>> 4. Don't have enough documentation for how to write an addon, how did the
>>>> buildr work underlie, like I still didn't understand in the dao-hibernate
>>>> module, how the mvn-hibernate.xml was used when I run 'buildr publish'.
>>>> .....
>>>> other comments inline.
>>>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Alexis Midon <midon@intalio.com> wrote:
>>>>  Hi Jeff,
>>>>> What are your pain points?

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