If this becomes part of the core of buildr as Peter suggested, would there be performance impact when not using transitive dependencies?
I have large projects using buildr (migrated from Maven), and I did strictly white listing without any use of transitive dependencies. Buildr runs at least twice faster then Maven to build the same large project after migration and generates WAR artifacts about half of the size of Maven. I believe using white listing of dependencies without transitive plays a key role in the performance / compactness I saw. I don't want to lose this key benefit of using buildr. In a sense, I would like to see transitive dependencies being optional (as it is in buildr now) and avoid any performance impact for projects not using transitive dependencies, if we brought in more "Maven stuff" into core buildr library. Cheers, Chiaming Hsu ________________________________ From: Peter Donald <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 8:40 PM Subject: Re: Experiences with transitive dependencies in buildr Hi, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Michael Guymon <[email protected]> wrote: > The integration with buildr is crude and for some reason the rdoc is no > longer formated correct. I will update it to make it legible again. > > https://github.com/mguymon/buildr-resolver nice. > This is the ruby wrapper for the Aether java libs, which buildr-resolver > depends on > > https://github.com/mguymon/naether That is quite neat. I wonder if the core of buildr could move across to using (n)Aether and if there is much benefit from that? Last time I looked the project was still relatively volatile. What did you think of working with the library? The one advantage I see is that it would be using the same core as maven and thus guaranteed to be compatible (where as now we know there is scenarios where we are not quite right). -- Cheers, Peter Donald
