You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@manifoldcf.apache.org by Jettro Coenradie <je...@gridshore.nl> on 2010/08/16 14:20:58 UTC
improving the build
Hi,
I think the current download is pretty big. Is there is good reason that we
do not use something like maven. Or at least, if you do not like maven, ivy
to share dependencies between projects. Also enforces you to use libraries
that are generally available.
I would also love to have the (unit)tests closer to the actual code, hard to
locate the tests at the moment
Would like to hear the thoughts of the developers
regards
--
Jettro Coenradie
http://www.gridshore.nl
Re: improving the build
Posted by Jettro Coenradie <je...@gridshore.nl>.
That is a good idea, maven can call ant to execute tasks. The jars are
available in the maven repository and should therefore not be to hard to
make available to the ant build. Would be nice to have an idea of the amount
of scripts that we need to alter to make this happen. I also see a lot of
shell scripts that might need attention if we change this.
- Jettro
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:52 PM, <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Re: build preferences
>
> Continuing to have an ant build is actually pretty important for some modes
> of delivery. I'm specifically thinking of debian and Ubuntu packaging here.
> Maven does not work well with these packaging schemes because it's too
> all-encompassing. We therefore need a way of doing builds locally, without
> pulling things down from a mirror.
>
> My original thought was that we'd have multiple layers - ant being the
> most basic, with a maven wrapper available to pull down what the ant build
> needed, and have the maven build call ant underneath. I don't know how
> realistic that is, but it does solve all the problems if it can be done that
> way.
>
> Karl
>
> From: jettro.coenradie@gmail.com [mailto:jettro.coenradie@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of ext Jettro Coenradie
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:43 AM
> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: improving the build
>
> I am looking at the current project structure. If we want to make another
> build tool available I think we need to change the directory structure. I
> tried to place a suggestion in an image. Can you please have a look at it.
> If we agree that this is a good way to go, than I will continue to work on a
> patch. Which might be a bit hard with all these changing directories, but
> I'll do my best to at least get an idea whether it would be working.
>
> So I have three questions:
> - Do you want to move to maven or put maven next to ant?
> - Do you prefer another build mechanism [ant with ivy, gradle, maven3]
> - Do you have an idea about the amount of scripts that need to be changed
> if we change the project structure
>
> The image of a possible project layout (that is based on the maven
> standards) is attached to the mail
>
> Jettro
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Jettro Coenradie <
> jettro.coenradie@gridshore.nl<ma...@gridshore.nl>>
> wrote:
> We could use something like profiles in maven. That way you can easily
> configure which projects to compile and which not. That would include tests.
>
> I will have a look at it and come up with a proposal.
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:49 PM, <karl.wright@nokia.com<mailto:
> karl.wright@nokia.com>> wrote:
> Re maven: There is a wiki page describing the Maven dependencies; somebody
> needs to tackle this. If you want to volunteer, we'd love to hear your
> proposal. However, please remember that you really must be sure to retain
> the connector conditional compilation structure as is currently in place,
> for license reasons.
>
> Re unit tests: The Junit test code was actually placed carefully based on
> the above considerations. In other words, you can't run a test that
> requires connectors x,y,z unless those connectors have actually been built.
> Similarly, you may think in terms of testing a specific connector by
> including tests for that connector, but those tests cannot use any OTHER
> connectors or you will break the build, which is why any tests that use
> multiple connectors must be at the module level.
>
> Karl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jettro.coenradie@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
> [mailto:jettro.coenradie@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>] On
> Behalf Of ext Jettro Coenradie
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 8:21 AM
> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org<mailto:
> connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: improving the build
>
> Hi,
> I think the current download is pretty big. Is there is good reason that we
> do not use something like maven. Or at least, if you do not like maven, ivy
> to share dependencies between projects. Also enforces you to use libraries
> that are generally available.
>
> I would also love to have the (unit)tests closer to the actual code, hard
> to
> locate the tests at the moment
>
> Would like to hear the thoughts of the developers
>
> regards
>
> --
> Jettro Coenradie
> http://www.gridshore.nl
>
>
>
> --
> Jettro Coenradie
> http://www.gridshore.nl
>
>
>
> --
> Jettro Coenradie
> http://www.gridshore.nl
>
--
Jettro Coenradie
http://www.gridshore.nl
RE: improving the build
Posted by ka...@nokia.com.
Re: build preferences
Continuing to have an ant build is actually pretty important for some modes of delivery. I'm specifically thinking of debian and Ubuntu packaging here. Maven does not work well with these packaging schemes because it's too all-encompassing. We therefore need a way of doing builds locally, without pulling things down from a mirror.
My original thought was that we'd have multiple layers - ant being the most basic, with a maven wrapper available to pull down what the ant build needed, and have the maven build call ant underneath. I don't know how realistic that is, but it does solve all the problems if it can be done that way.
Karl
From: jettro.coenradie@gmail.com [mailto:jettro.coenradie@gmail.com] On Behalf Of ext Jettro Coenradie
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:43 AM
To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: improving the build
I am looking at the current project structure. If we want to make another build tool available I think we need to change the directory structure. I tried to place a suggestion in an image. Can you please have a look at it. If we agree that this is a good way to go, than I will continue to work on a patch. Which might be a bit hard with all these changing directories, but I'll do my best to at least get an idea whether it would be working.
So I have three questions:
- Do you want to move to maven or put maven next to ant?
- Do you prefer another build mechanism [ant with ivy, gradle, maven3]
- Do you have an idea about the amount of scripts that need to be changed if we change the project structure
The image of a possible project layout (that is based on the maven standards) is attached to the mail
Jettro
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Jettro Coenradie <je...@gridshore.nl>> wrote:
We could use something like profiles in maven. That way you can easily configure which projects to compile and which not. That would include tests.
I will have a look at it and come up with a proposal.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:49 PM, <ka...@nokia.com>> wrote:
Re maven: There is a wiki page describing the Maven dependencies; somebody needs to tackle this. If you want to volunteer, we'd love to hear your proposal. However, please remember that you really must be sure to retain the connector conditional compilation structure as is currently in place, for license reasons.
Re unit tests: The Junit test code was actually placed carefully based on the above considerations. In other words, you can't run a test that requires connectors x,y,z unless those connectors have actually been built. Similarly, you may think in terms of testing a specific connector by including tests for that connector, but those tests cannot use any OTHER connectors or you will break the build, which is why any tests that use multiple connectors must be at the module level.
Karl
-----Original Message-----
From: jettro.coenradie@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com> [mailto:jettro.coenradie@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>] On Behalf Of ext Jettro Coenradie
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 8:21 AM
To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: improving the build
Hi,
I think the current download is pretty big. Is there is good reason that we
do not use something like maven. Or at least, if you do not like maven, ivy
to share dependencies between projects. Also enforces you to use libraries
that are generally available.
I would also love to have the (unit)tests closer to the actual code, hard to
locate the tests at the moment
Would like to hear the thoughts of the developers
regards
--
Jettro Coenradie
http://www.gridshore.nl
--
Jettro Coenradie
http://www.gridshore.nl
--
Jettro Coenradie
http://www.gridshore.nl
RE: improving the build
Posted by ka...@nokia.com.
The image didn't come through, I'm afraid.
There may already be a Maven ticket in jira. If you can't find it, please create one. Attach your image to the ticket, and your proposal, and we'll all have a look at it.
Karl
From: jettro.coenradie@gmail.com [mailto:jettro.coenradie@gmail.com] On Behalf Of ext Jettro Coenradie
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:43 AM
To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: improving the build
I am looking at the current project structure. If we want to make another build tool available I think we need to change the directory structure. I tried to place a suggestion in an image. Can you please have a look at it. If we agree that this is a good way to go, than I will continue to work on a patch. Which might be a bit hard with all these changing directories, but I'll do my best to at least get an idea whether it would be working.
So I have three questions:
- Do you want to move to maven or put maven next to ant?
- Do you prefer another build mechanism [ant with ivy, gradle, maven3]
- Do you have an idea about the amount of scripts that need to be changed if we change the project structure
The image of a possible project layout (that is based on the maven standards) is attached to the mail
Jettro
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Jettro Coenradie <je...@gridshore.nl>> wrote:
We could use something like profiles in maven. That way you can easily configure which projects to compile and which not. That would include tests.
I will have a look at it and come up with a proposal.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:49 PM, <ka...@nokia.com>> wrote:
Re maven: There is a wiki page describing the Maven dependencies; somebody needs to tackle this. If you want to volunteer, we'd love to hear your proposal. However, please remember that you really must be sure to retain the connector conditional compilation structure as is currently in place, for license reasons.
Re unit tests: The Junit test code was actually placed carefully based on the above considerations. In other words, you can't run a test that requires connectors x,y,z unless those connectors have actually been built. Similarly, you may think in terms of testing a specific connector by including tests for that connector, but those tests cannot use any OTHER connectors or you will break the build, which is why any tests that use multiple connectors must be at the module level.
Karl
-----Original Message-----
From: jettro.coenradie@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com> [mailto:jettro.coenradie@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>] On Behalf Of ext Jettro Coenradie
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 8:21 AM
To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: improving the build
Hi,
I think the current download is pretty big. Is there is good reason that we
do not use something like maven. Or at least, if you do not like maven, ivy
to share dependencies between projects. Also enforces you to use libraries
that are generally available.
I would also love to have the (unit)tests closer to the actual code, hard to
locate the tests at the moment
Would like to hear the thoughts of the developers
regards
--
Jettro Coenradie
http://www.gridshore.nl
--
Jettro Coenradie
http://www.gridshore.nl
--
Jettro Coenradie
http://www.gridshore.nl
Re: improving the build
Posted by Jettro Coenradie <je...@gridshore.nl>.
I am looking at the current project structure. If we want to make another
build tool available I think we need to change the directory structure. I
tried to place a suggestion in an image. Can you please have a look at it.
If we agree that this is a good way to go, than I will continue to work on a
patch. Which might be a bit hard with all these changing directories, but
I'll do my best to at least get an idea whether it would be working.
So I have three questions:
- Do you want to move to maven or put maven next to ant?
- Do you prefer another build mechanism [ant with ivy, gradle, maven3]
- Do you have an idea about the amount of scripts that need to be changed if
we change the project structure
The image of a possible project layout (that is based on the maven
standards) is attached to the mail
Jettro
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Jettro Coenradie <
jettro.coenradie@gridshore.nl> wrote:
> We could use something like profiles in maven. That way you can easily
> configure which projects to compile and which not. That would include tests.
>
> I will have a look at it and come up with a proposal.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:49 PM, <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
>
>> Re maven: There is a wiki page describing the Maven dependencies; somebody
>> needs to tackle this. If you want to volunteer, we'd love to hear your
>> proposal. However, please remember that you really must be sure to retain
>> the connector conditional compilation structure as is currently in place,
>> for license reasons.
>>
>> Re unit tests: The Junit test code was actually placed carefully based on
>> the above considerations. In other words, you can't run a test that
>> requires connectors x,y,z unless those connectors have actually been built.
>> Similarly, you may think in terms of testing a specific connector by
>> including tests for that connector, but those tests cannot use any OTHER
>> connectors or you will break the build, which is why any tests that use
>> multiple connectors must be at the module level.
>>
>> Karl
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: jettro.coenradie@gmail.com [mailto:jettro.coenradie@gmail.com] On
>> Behalf Of ext Jettro Coenradie
>> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 8:21 AM
>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: improving the build
>>
>> Hi,
>> I think the current download is pretty big. Is there is good reason that
>> we
>> do not use something like maven. Or at least, if you do not like maven,
>> ivy
>> to share dependencies between projects. Also enforces you to use libraries
>> that are generally available.
>>
>> I would also love to have the (unit)tests closer to the actual code, hard
>> to
>> locate the tests at the moment
>>
>> Would like to hear the thoughts of the developers
>>
>> regards
>>
>> --
>> Jettro Coenradie
>> http://www.gridshore.nl
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jettro Coenradie
> http://www.gridshore.nl
>
--
Jettro Coenradie
http://www.gridshore.nl
Re: improving the build
Posted by Jettro Coenradie <je...@gridshore.nl>.
We could use something like profiles in maven. That way you can easily
configure which projects to compile and which not. That would include tests.
I will have a look at it and come up with a proposal.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:49 PM, <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Re maven: There is a wiki page describing the Maven dependencies; somebody
> needs to tackle this. If you want to volunteer, we'd love to hear your
> proposal. However, please remember that you really must be sure to retain
> the connector conditional compilation structure as is currently in place,
> for license reasons.
>
> Re unit tests: The Junit test code was actually placed carefully based on
> the above considerations. In other words, you can't run a test that
> requires connectors x,y,z unless those connectors have actually been built.
> Similarly, you may think in terms of testing a specific connector by
> including tests for that connector, but those tests cannot use any OTHER
> connectors or you will break the build, which is why any tests that use
> multiple connectors must be at the module level.
>
> Karl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jettro.coenradie@gmail.com [mailto:jettro.coenradie@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of ext Jettro Coenradie
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 8:21 AM
> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: improving the build
>
> Hi,
> I think the current download is pretty big. Is there is good reason that we
> do not use something like maven. Or at least, if you do not like maven, ivy
> to share dependencies between projects. Also enforces you to use libraries
> that are generally available.
>
> I would also love to have the (unit)tests closer to the actual code, hard
> to
> locate the tests at the moment
>
> Would like to hear the thoughts of the developers
>
> regards
>
> --
> Jettro Coenradie
> http://www.gridshore.nl
>
--
Jettro Coenradie
http://www.gridshore.nl
RE: improving the build
Posted by ka...@nokia.com.
Re maven: There is a wiki page describing the Maven dependencies; somebody needs to tackle this. If you want to volunteer, we'd love to hear your proposal. However, please remember that you really must be sure to retain the connector conditional compilation structure as is currently in place, for license reasons.
Re unit tests: The Junit test code was actually placed carefully based on the above considerations. In other words, you can't run a test that requires connectors x,y,z unless those connectors have actually been built. Similarly, you may think in terms of testing a specific connector by including tests for that connector, but those tests cannot use any OTHER connectors or you will break the build, which is why any tests that use multiple connectors must be at the module level.
Karl
-----Original Message-----
From: jettro.coenradie@gmail.com [mailto:jettro.coenradie@gmail.com] On Behalf Of ext Jettro Coenradie
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 8:21 AM
To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: improving the build
Hi,
I think the current download is pretty big. Is there is good reason that we
do not use something like maven. Or at least, if you do not like maven, ivy
to share dependencies between projects. Also enforces you to use libraries
that are generally available.
I would also love to have the (unit)tests closer to the actual code, hard to
locate the tests at the moment
Would like to hear the thoughts of the developers
regards
--
Jettro Coenradie
http://www.gridshore.nl