You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@ant.apache.org by "Nau, Michael" <Mi...@pyxis.com> on 2003/01/10 03:03:18 UTC
AntHill vs. CruiseControl vs. Gump
I have been assigned with setting up an integrated build process for all
of our software components. The idea being to build each component
working with the dependency tree in a top-to-bottom fashion. We
currently have approximately 25 components which are currently being
build individually with ant.
Does anyone have any recommendations for this. My initial thought was to
have a master build.xml file that calls into the component's build.xml.
But after doing to investigation I came across a couple of tools that
seem to be designed for this problem: AntHill, CruiseControl & Gump.
Does anyone have any recommendations as to which one is better?
Thanks,
Mike.
Re: AntHill vs. CruiseControl vs. Gump
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Michael Nau <Mi...@pyxis.com> wrote:
> Does anyone have any recommendations as to which one is better?
I'm afraid you'll have to evaluate yourself.
Note that Gump on the one side and CruiseControl and AntHill on the
other cover different scenarios to a certain degree.
Gump is not automated in itself (CruiseControl and AntHill get
triggered by commits IIRC) and is focussed on cross-project,
cross-SCM-module building. You won't need your master build file with
Gump. Gump is pretty difficult to set up, though.
Stefan
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: AntHill vs. CruiseControl vs. Gump
Posted by Ge...@ssga.com.
>I came across a couple of tools that
>seem to be designed for this problem: AntHill, CruiseControl & Gump.
>Does anyone have any recommendations as to which one is better?
These tools are great for such things. Eric Hatcher's book, "Java
Development With ANT" (http://www.manning.com/hatcher), has a nice chapter
on continuous integration, focusing on these three tools. He gives a good
basic comparison of the three that I agree with. I recommend that you get
this book highly - for this, and for the best practices (Integrating SCM
with build process and more) help you are looking for in the other email :)
There are many many excellent recommendations throughout.
IMHO: Based on a very basic look at the three, the most immediately-obvious
difference is getting the tool set up- Anthill is the easiest to get
running and to get projects started. Other than this and look and feel,
each has its own pros and cons, as all seem to be great tools- so a look
into the book above and a trial of each might be helpful.
George
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
AW: AntHill vs. CruiseControl vs. Gump
Posted by Ilja Preuss <pr...@disy.net>.
> Does anyone have any recommendations for this. My initial thought was to
> have a master build.xml file that calls into the component's build.xml.
> But after doing to investigation I came across a couple of tools that
> seem to be designed for this problem: AntHill, CruiseControl & Gump.
> Does anyone have any recommendations as to which one is better?
AFAIK, Gump is rather a Nightly-Build server - it doesn't monitor the vcs.
We are currently using Cruise Control and it works well. The only drawback:
there is no dependency checking supported by CC, so you have to do this via
Ant if you don't want to do a full build of all projects every time.
Possibly AntHill is better suited in this regard.
Another option would be to use Integration Guard:
http://iguard.sourceforge.net/
Can't tell you much about it, though...
Regards, Ilja
--
++ wir optimieren Ihre Informations- und Kommunikationsprozesse ++
++ disy Cadenza: Informationsintegration am i*net Arbeitsplatz ++
++ disy conference: The easy way of audio conferencing ++
++ disy Call-Back Office: Call-Back-Buttons fur Kundenservice im Web ++
Ilja Preu? preuss@disy.net
disy Informationssysteme GmbH http://www.disy.net
Stephanienstr. 30 Tel: +49 721 1 600 624
D-76133 Karlsruhe, Germany Fax: +49 721 1 600 605
++ Weitere Informationen finden Sie unter http://www.disy.net ++
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: AntHill vs. CruiseControl vs. Gump
Posted by Steve Loughran <st...@iseran.com>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Hatcher" <ja...@ehatchersolutions.com>
To: "Ant Users List" <an...@jakarta.apache.org>
Cc: "Maciej Zawadzki" <mb...@urbancode.com>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 03:01
Subject: Re: AntHill vs. CruiseControl vs. Gump
> p.s. I also have found it disheartening that CruiseControl was so
> difficult to configure initially, and that it had such hard-coded
> settings in their WEB-INF/web.xml that had to be changed, rather than
> Anthill's elegant easy configuration from a web browser. I suspect
> these issues have been addressed at least partially by the CC team, but
> it was an afterthought rather than being done from the start.
>
which shows its origin from a consultancy group; setup is probably something
they did as part of their consultancy. Now it is more mainstream it *should*
be easier to use.
I am thinking of setting up gump, so I can get axis down nightly and build
my apps against it. Also I can do a nightly run of Ant and Axis on a
multi-cpu NT box, which tests them in different ways from Sam's setup.
-steve
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: AntHill vs. CruiseControl vs. Gump
Posted by Erik Hatcher <ja...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
See:
http://archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=ant-
user@jakarta.apache.org&msgId=502447
This was a comparison Steve and I did in our book, be sure to see the
attached PDF file there.
Update: we are now using Anthill *and* CruiseControl just because we
can and its interesting to compare them. I wholeheartedly recommend
Anthill. Since writing about Anthill, I have met and become good
friends with Maciej Zawadzki, the creator of Anthill (so there is full
disclosure, in case bias is perceived :).
The e-mails we get from CruiseControl are prettier, since we are using
the HTML e-mailer and are able to see our build, unit test, and
repository results all in a nice view without having to scroll through
the actual build file.
But, the counterpoint is that we push our <junitreport> results to the
Anthill output directory automatically and can view them through our
intranet with a browser, and this is something that seems to be rather
difficult (e.g. we haven't configured it yet because it wasn't worth
the time/trouble) with CruiseControl. Also note, we are not running
the latest versions of either of these tools - what we have running
works well enough and so we have not had a need to tinker with those
tools.
So, the short story: use Anthill. If that doesn't meet your needs,
then first get in touch with the Anthill e-mail list to see if your
issues are already resolved or it is an easy fix. Maciej is very
active with and the open-source version of Anthill is still very much
alive and well, with Maciej's full commitment to it already being
explicitly stated on their e-mail list recently.
Erik
p.s. I also have found it disheartening that CruiseControl was so
difficult to configure initially, and that it had such hard-coded
settings in their WEB-INF/web.xml that had to be changed, rather than
Anthill's elegant easy configuration from a web browser. I suspect
these issues have been addressed at least partially by the CC team, but
it was an afterthought rather than being done from the start.
On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 09:03 PM, Nau, Michael wrote:
> I have been assigned with setting up an integrated build process for
> all
> of our software components. The idea being to build each component
> working with the dependency tree in a top-to-bottom fashion. We
> currently have approximately 25 components which are currently being
> build individually with ant.
>
> Does anyone have any recommendations for this. My initial thought was
> to
> have a master build.xml file that calls into the component's build.xml.
> But after doing to investigation I came across a couple of tools that
> seem to be designed for this problem: AntHill, CruiseControl & Gump.
> Does anyone have any recommendations as to which one is better?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike.
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>