For me the vendoring issue is ok cause it should belong to another shade loduke released with beam when needed. It is not an uncommon practise.
Now the lack of IDE integration for tests/debug (using gradle runner is a workaround and still hurts by its slowness compared to native run) is a clear showstopper for me. Also, from a community perspective, gradle adoption is far to be mainstream (even spark is built with maven) so does not serve beam at the end. Maven build didnt have any issue except the duration AFAIK, gradle has 2 blockers + several small drawbacks (custom build and no standard, no tooling without script execution, bad integration in enterprise chaines like security auditing etc). Overall gradle build is close to maven one - last time i tested it was within 15% so not worth it when you see the time you loose when developping anything. It is key to keep in mind jenkiks is cheaper than human time. Le mar. 9 oct. 2018 13:22, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> a écrit : > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 10:04 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >> Hi guys, >> >> I know that's a hot topic, but I have to bring this discussion on the >> table. >> > > Thank you for bringing this up and revisiting it now that we have some > experience. > > >> Some months ago, we discussed about migrating our build from Maven to >> Gradle. One of the key expected improvement was the time to build. >> We proposed to do a PoC to evaluate the impacts and improvements, but >> this PoC was actually directly a migrate on master. >> >> Now, I would like to bring facts here: >> >> 1. Build time >> On my machine, the build time is roughly 1h15. It's pretty long, and >> regarding what the build is doing, I don't see huge improvement provided >> by Gradle. >> > > I rarely, if ever, build from scratch so perhaps I have not been impacted > by this nearly as much. (In particular, build and test times seem to have > gone way down for me, probably due to better incremental support, but > that's just anecdotal.) > > Is this worse than it was on maven, or just not as much better as was > hoped? > > >> 2. Build reliability >> Even worse, most of the time, we need to use --no-parallel and >> --no-daemon to have a reliable build (it's basically recommended for >> release). It has an impact on build time, and we loose part of Gradle >> benefits. >> > > I think this is a matter of incorrect dependency declarations (and is not > unique to gradle). I'd have loved to been able to go with a build system > that simply didn't let you have incorrect dependency declarations, but that > wasn't an option for other reasons. > > I wonder if there's some automatic tooling we could leverage to fix (and > keep fixed) this. Regardless, this is unfinished work that remains to be > done so we can realize the full benefits. > > >> 3. Release and repositories >> Even if couple of releases has been performed with Gradle, it's not >> obvious to see improvements around artifacts handling. I got my >> repository polluted twice (that's part of the trick Gradle is doing to >> speed up the build dealing around the repository). >> > > Could you clarify what improvements we were expecting here? I thought the > goal was that we could publish the same artifacts, with no regression. > > >> 4. IDE integration >> We already had some comments on the mailing lists about the IDE >> integration. Clearly, the situation is not good on that front too. The >> integration on IDE (especially IntelliJ) is not good enough right now. >> > > This is important. To be honest, I had also issues back in the day getting > the maven setup working well out of the box in IntelliJ and Eclipse (mostly > with respect to things like shadowing and protobufs), so we shouldn't fall > prey to the golden age fallacy. > > It seems the recent move to vendoring has caused more issues here; I'm not > sure that would be fixed just moving back to maven (or how to resolve it > going forward). > > On the other hand, just last week I set up a new computer according to > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BEAM/IntelliJ+Tips and that > seems to be working fine. > > >> We are working hard to grow up the community, and from a contributor >> perspective, our build system is not good today IMHO. >> As a contributor, I resumed my work on some PRs, and I'm spending so >> much time of the build, largely more than working on the PRs code itself. >> >> So, obviously, the situation is not perfect, at least from a contributor >> perspective. >> >> The purpose of this thread is not again to have a bunch of replied >> ending nowhere. I would like to be more "pushy" and let's try to be >> concrete. So basically, we only have two options: >> >> 1. Improve the build, working hard on Gradle front. Not sure if it makes >> such sense from a contributor perspective, as Maven is really well known >> from most of contributors (and easier to start with IMHO). >> 2. Back on Maven. That's clearly my preferred approach. IDE integration >> is better, Maven is well known from the contributors as already said. >> The effort is not so huge. We tried to use Gradle, we don't have the >> expected results now, that's not a problem, it's part of a project >> lifetime. >> >> Thoughts ? >> > > I'd like to add some perspective as a primarily non-Java contributor > (having contributed "only" a couple thousand lines to the java side over > the last couple of years) that maven feels much more java-centric (as is > our repo, but that's a separate issue). Also, as someone not coming from > with years of maven (or gradle for that matter) experience before working > on Beam, I have found gradle much more intuitive and easier to learn. > Especially when it comes to developing changes that span multiple modules > (which for some reason I guess I tend to do a lot of, but with so many of > our core sdk tests being validates runner that's likely to hit people just > starting out as well). Now of course I don't want to discount the Java > community, indeed it's arguably the largest and most important one at this > point, but I also think that Beam's ability to not be limited to that one > language (and ecosystem) is one of its huge selling points and > differentiation (see the whole portability effort, which is for both SDKs > and Runners). > > Even from a Java perspective, neither is so obscure as to be a significant > barrier, and both are customizable enough that the average new developer is > probably going to be looking at the documentation to see what commands to > run to build/test/validate this project. So this is probably something > documentation can address. > > But if we're going to reap the benefits and minimize the downsides of this > migration, we have to finish the job. > > - Robert > > >
