You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@buildr.apache.org by Nikos Maris <ni...@gmail.com> on 2010/08/23 00:18:44 UTC
ivy4r vs buildr
Why does buildr provide dependency management when there is already
Ivy? Does it make sense to make the transitive method use ivy4r in an
upcoming buildr release? Having a fork of Ivy that is less
configurable but simpler, is something that I wished when I started
these days to learn Ivy.
----------------------------------
Nikos Maris
Software Engineer
IMC Technologies SA
www.imc.com.gr
Re: ivy4r vs buildr
Posted by Peter Schröder <pe...@blau.de>.
http://github.com/klaas1979/ivy4r/
last commit on 2010-06-09
why do you think this is dead?
Am 23.08.2010 um 09:57 schrieb Nikos Maris:
Is there any partial Ivy support in the svn? Ivy4r seems to be a dead project.
----------------------------------
Nikos Maris
Software Engineer
IMC Technologies SA
www.imc.com.gr
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:48 AM, Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 22, 2010, Nikos Maris <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why does buildr provide dependency management when there is already
>> Ivy? Does it make sense to make the transitive method use ivy4r in an
>> upcoming buildr release? Having a fork of Ivy that is less
>> configurable but simpler, is something that I wished when I started
>> these days to learn Ivy.
>
> What buildr does today is the minimum/easiest that could accomodate
> people without reinventing Ivy.
>
> Yes, the plan is to reuse Ivy (or a subset) to complete transitive
> dependency support. It will likely be an opinionated approach, with
> many choices taken out of what's possible to do with Ivy, aligning
> ourselves with Maven in terms of compatibility, and favoring
> determinism.
>
> For people who want full Ivy support, Buildr would defer to the Ivy4r plugin.
>
> The timeframe for this seems to be Buildr 1.5 -- hopefully before the
> end of 2010 but no guarantees.
>
> alex
>
Re: ivy4r vs buildr
Posted by Peter Schröder <pe...@blau.de>.
again....
http://github.com/klaas1979/ivy4r/
Am 24.08.2010 um 08:14 schrieb Nikos Maris:
Is there any support site for ivy4r, bug tracking or a mailing list?
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Klaas Reineke <kl...@blau.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ivy4r is not dead at all :)
>
> I am still maintaining it and we are using it on our build server every day for around 90 build plans. There is a need for better documentation and a few examples. Right now I don't know any open feature request. There is an outstanding merge from "stephenh" on git, but beside this everything is up to date and working.
>
> Regards Klaas
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nikos Maris [mailto:nickmeet@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 9:58 AM
> To: users@buildr.apache.org
> Subject: Re: ivy4r vs buildr
>
> Is there any partial Ivy support in the svn? Ivy4r seems to be a dead project.
>
> ----------------------------------
> Nikos Maris
> Software Engineer
> IMC Technologies SA
> www.imc.com.gr
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:48 AM, Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 22, 2010, Nikos Maris <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Why does buildr provide dependency management when there is already
>>> Ivy? Does it make sense to make the transitive method use ivy4r in an
>>> upcoming buildr release? Having a fork of Ivy that is less
>>> configurable but simpler, is something that I wished when I started
>>> these days to learn Ivy.
>>
>> What buildr does today is the minimum/easiest that could accomodate
>> people without reinventing Ivy.
>>
>> Yes, the plan is to reuse Ivy (or a subset) to complete transitive
>> dependency support. It will likely be an opinionated approach, with
>> many choices taken out of what's possible to do with Ivy, aligning
>> ourselves with Maven in terms of compatibility, and favoring
>> determinism.
>>
>> For people who want full Ivy support, Buildr would defer to the Ivy4r plugin.
>>
>> The timeframe for this seems to be Buildr 1.5 -- hopefully before the
>> end of 2010 but no guarantees.
>>
>> alex
>>
>
RE: ivy4r vs buildr
Posted by Klaas Reineke <kl...@blau.de>.
No,
right now there is no site beside the github Page. You can create issues on Github. I have no idea how many people are actively using ivy4r till today I just answered personal questions about ivy4r as did Peter by providing a simple example or answering questions that have been posted on this mailing list.
Regards Klaas
-----Original Message-----
From: Nikos Maris [mailto:nickmeet@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 8:14 AM
To: users@buildr.apache.org
Subject: Re: ivy4r vs buildr
Is there any support site for ivy4r, bug tracking or a mailing list?
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Klaas Reineke <kl...@blau.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ivy4r is not dead at all :)
>
> I am still maintaining it and we are using it on our build server every day for around 90 build plans. There is a need for better documentation and a few examples. Right now I don't know any open feature request. There is an outstanding merge from "stephenh" on git, but beside this everything is up to date and working.
>
> Regards Klaas
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nikos Maris [mailto:nickmeet@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 9:58 AM
> To: users@buildr.apache.org
> Subject: Re: ivy4r vs buildr
>
> Is there any partial Ivy support in the svn? Ivy4r seems to be a dead project.
>
> ----------------------------------
> Nikos Maris
> Software Engineer
> IMC Technologies SA
> www.imc.com.gr
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:48 AM, Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 22, 2010, Nikos Maris <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Why does buildr provide dependency management when there is already
>>> Ivy? Does it make sense to make the transitive method use ivy4r in an
>>> upcoming buildr release? Having a fork of Ivy that is less
>>> configurable but simpler, is something that I wished when I started
>>> these days to learn Ivy.
>>
>> What buildr does today is the minimum/easiest that could accomodate
>> people without reinventing Ivy.
>>
>> Yes, the plan is to reuse Ivy (or a subset) to complete transitive
>> dependency support. It will likely be an opinionated approach, with
>> many choices taken out of what's possible to do with Ivy, aligning
>> ourselves with Maven in terms of compatibility, and favoring
>> determinism.
>>
>> For people who want full Ivy support, Buildr would defer to the Ivy4r plugin.
>>
>> The timeframe for this seems to be Buildr 1.5 -- hopefully before the
>> end of 2010 but no guarantees.
>>
>> alex
>>
>
Re: ivy4r vs buildr
Posted by Nikos Maris <ni...@gmail.com>.
Is there any support site for ivy4r, bug tracking or a mailing list?
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Klaas Reineke <kl...@blau.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ivy4r is not dead at all :)
>
> I am still maintaining it and we are using it on our build server every day for around 90 build plans. There is a need for better documentation and a few examples. Right now I don't know any open feature request. There is an outstanding merge from "stephenh" on git, but beside this everything is up to date and working.
>
> Regards Klaas
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nikos Maris [mailto:nickmeet@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 9:58 AM
> To: users@buildr.apache.org
> Subject: Re: ivy4r vs buildr
>
> Is there any partial Ivy support in the svn? Ivy4r seems to be a dead project.
>
> ----------------------------------
> Nikos Maris
> Software Engineer
> IMC Technologies SA
> www.imc.com.gr
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:48 AM, Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 22, 2010, Nikos Maris <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Why does buildr provide dependency management when there is already
>>> Ivy? Does it make sense to make the transitive method use ivy4r in an
>>> upcoming buildr release? Having a fork of Ivy that is less
>>> configurable but simpler, is something that I wished when I started
>>> these days to learn Ivy.
>>
>> What buildr does today is the minimum/easiest that could accomodate
>> people without reinventing Ivy.
>>
>> Yes, the plan is to reuse Ivy (or a subset) to complete transitive
>> dependency support. It will likely be an opinionated approach, with
>> many choices taken out of what's possible to do with Ivy, aligning
>> ourselves with Maven in terms of compatibility, and favoring
>> determinism.
>>
>> For people who want full Ivy support, Buildr would defer to the Ivy4r plugin.
>>
>> The timeframe for this seems to be Buildr 1.5 -- hopefully before the
>> end of 2010 but no guarantees.
>>
>> alex
>>
>
RE: ivy4r vs buildr
Posted by Klaas Reineke <kl...@blau.de>.
Hi,
ivy4r is not dead at all :)
I am still maintaining it and we are using it on our build server every day for around 90 build plans. There is a need for better documentation and a few examples. Right now I don't know any open feature request. There is an outstanding merge from "stephenh" on git, but beside this everything is up to date and working.
Regards Klaas
-----Original Message-----
From: Nikos Maris [mailto:nickmeet@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 9:58 AM
To: users@buildr.apache.org
Subject: Re: ivy4r vs buildr
Is there any partial Ivy support in the svn? Ivy4r seems to be a dead project.
----------------------------------
Nikos Maris
Software Engineer
IMC Technologies SA
www.imc.com.gr
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:48 AM, Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 22, 2010, Nikos Maris <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why does buildr provide dependency management when there is already
>> Ivy? Does it make sense to make the transitive method use ivy4r in an
>> upcoming buildr release? Having a fork of Ivy that is less
>> configurable but simpler, is something that I wished when I started
>> these days to learn Ivy.
>
> What buildr does today is the minimum/easiest that could accomodate
> people without reinventing Ivy.
>
> Yes, the plan is to reuse Ivy (or a subset) to complete transitive
> dependency support. It will likely be an opinionated approach, with
> many choices taken out of what's possible to do with Ivy, aligning
> ourselves with Maven in terms of compatibility, and favoring
> determinism.
>
> For people who want full Ivy support, Buildr would defer to the Ivy4r plugin.
>
> The timeframe for this seems to be Buildr 1.5 -- hopefully before the
> end of 2010 but no guarantees.
>
> alex
>
Re: ivy4r vs buildr
Posted by Nikos Maris <ni...@gmail.com>.
Is there any partial Ivy support in the svn? Ivy4r seems to be a dead project.
----------------------------------
Nikos Maris
Software Engineer
IMC Technologies SA
www.imc.com.gr
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:48 AM, Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 22, 2010, Nikos Maris <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why does buildr provide dependency management when there is already
>> Ivy? Does it make sense to make the transitive method use ivy4r in an
>> upcoming buildr release? Having a fork of Ivy that is less
>> configurable but simpler, is something that I wished when I started
>> these days to learn Ivy.
>
> What buildr does today is the minimum/easiest that could accomodate
> people without reinventing Ivy.
>
> Yes, the plan is to reuse Ivy (or a subset) to complete transitive
> dependency support. It will likely be an opinionated approach, with
> many choices taken out of what's possible to do with Ivy, aligning
> ourselves with Maven in terms of compatibility, and favoring
> determinism.
>
> For people who want full Ivy support, Buildr would defer to the Ivy4r plugin.
>
> The timeframe for this seems to be Buildr 1.5 -- hopefully before the
> end of 2010 but no guarantees.
>
> alex
>
Re: ivy4r vs buildr
Posted by Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>.
For OSGi, I developed an extension that parses an Eclipse installation, and
gives the dependencies of your project from its manifest.
It's called buildr4osgi.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 16:48, Peter Donald <pe...@realityforge.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> One of the aspects I really like about OSGis is that it declares
> dependencies on an API rather than an implementation. So some of my
> code has a dependency on APIs of log4j, commons logging and the sl4j
> but all these APIs are provided by Pax Logging. OSGi has a repository
> system (OBR see
> http://felix.apache.org/site/apache-felix-osgi-bundle-repository.html)
> that allows you to search for artifacts/bundles that satisfy
> APIs+constraints. Felix apparently apparently has a project in
> progress that integrates OSGi's OBR with Ivy
> (http://felix.apache.org/site/apache-felix-sigil.html) but I have yet
> to look into it.
>
> I would love to see buildr offer some sort of mechanism for building
> and caching a tree of dependencies based on queries to OBR. It could
> traverse as far as required (i.e. the minimal set for compilation, the
> minimal set for running, the runtime set with certain optional
> dependencies present or the complete tree). It would probably have to
> be something that sat next to regular maven repository integration but
> something that could build a config file for ivy/maven would be great.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Peter Donald
>
Re: ivy4r vs buildr
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@realityforge.org>.
Hi,
One of the aspects I really like about OSGis is that it declares
dependencies on an API rather than an implementation. So some of my
code has a dependency on APIs of log4j, commons logging and the sl4j
but all these APIs are provided by Pax Logging. OSGi has a repository
system (OBR see
http://felix.apache.org/site/apache-felix-osgi-bundle-repository.html)
that allows you to search for artifacts/bundles that satisfy
APIs+constraints. Felix apparently apparently has a project in
progress that integrates OSGi's OBR with Ivy
(http://felix.apache.org/site/apache-felix-sigil.html) but I have yet
to look into it.
I would love to see buildr offer some sort of mechanism for building
and caching a tree of dependencies based on queries to OBR. It could
traverse as far as required (i.e. the minimal set for compilation, the
minimal set for running, the runtime set with certain optional
dependencies present or the complete tree). It would probably have to
be something that sat next to regular maven repository integration but
something that could build a config file for ivy/maven would be great.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
RE: ivy4r vs buildr
Posted by Klaas Reineke <kl...@blau.de>.
Hi,
we are using Ivy for dependency management since 2007 in our company because of the nice transitive dependency management features. If I had the option to establish a different approach I would just use buildrs simple dependency management features, especially after creating ivy4r for our seamless migration from ANT to Buildr. Transitive dependencies seam to be great till the first time you got an old version of artifact X that makes problem with library Y and you need to exclude this stuff. The white-listing of dependencies as needed when using buildrs dependency management is great to have the smallest sub-set of dependencies possible.
We used to create handcrafted ivy.xmls for an in-house Ivy Repository for every external library because ibiblio does not provide ivy.xmls for most libraries. This was quite a lot of work so we shifted to use public Maven repositories behind a Nexus proxy. This shift brought new problems. Our WARs and EARs are now much bigger in size, because of all the transitive dependencies defined we do not use but retrieve nevertheless from the Maven world.
If I could start from scratch I would just use buildr as is. Right now our infrastructure is so tightly integrated with ivy that it would be a lot of work with no real benefit. If you have the choice you should evaluate if you would really like to host an in-house Ivy Repository and maybe an additional maven proxy like Nexus to support your builds with all the complexity that Ivy and transitive dependencies bring. Maybe the simple approach can work for you.
Regards
Klaas
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Boisvert [mailto:alex.boisvert@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 3:48 AM
To: users@buildr.apache.org
Subject: Re: ivy4r vs buildr
On Sunday, August 22, 2010, Nikos Maris <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why does buildr provide dependency management when there is already
> Ivy? Does it make sense to make the transitive method use ivy4r in an
> upcoming buildr release? Having a fork of Ivy that is less
> configurable but simpler, is something that I wished when I started
> these days to learn Ivy.
What buildr does today is the minimum/easiest that could accomodate
people without reinventing Ivy.
Yes, the plan is to reuse Ivy (or a subset) to complete transitive
dependency support. It will likely be an opinionated approach, with
many choices taken out of what's possible to do with Ivy, aligning
ourselves with Maven in terms of compatibility, and favoring
determinism.
For people who want full Ivy support, Buildr would defer to the Ivy4r plugin.
The timeframe for this seems to be Buildr 1.5 -- hopefully before the
end of 2010 but no guarantees.
alex
Re: ivy4r vs buildr
Posted by Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com>.
On Sunday, August 22, 2010, Nikos Maris <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why does buildr provide dependency management when there is already
> Ivy? Does it make sense to make the transitive method use ivy4r in an
> upcoming buildr release? Having a fork of Ivy that is less
> configurable but simpler, is something that I wished when I started
> these days to learn Ivy.
What buildr does today is the minimum/easiest that could accomodate
people without reinventing Ivy.
Yes, the plan is to reuse Ivy (or a subset) to complete transitive
dependency support. It will likely be an opinionated approach, with
many choices taken out of what's possible to do with Ivy, aligning
ourselves with Maven in terms of compatibility, and favoring
determinism.
For people who want full Ivy support, Buildr would defer to the Ivy4r plugin.
The timeframe for this seems to be Buildr 1.5 -- hopefully before the
end of 2010 but no guarantees.
alex