+1 for Grunt. I don't quite understand this general aversion against build tools based on Node.js On Nov 1, 2012 12:02 PM, "Simon Metson" <si...@cloudant.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > > Just to explicit my point of view. In erica there is a coming feature > call > > hooks that can be applied at any step on the process. In parallel, before > > sending the doc the json will b e put in the .erica/build folder : > > > > .erica/build/appYYYYMMDD folder (or version if specified) , so any > > transformation can be applied on it. > > > > Since we are working on a version of erica that could be integrated in > > couch I think it worth to work with it for the next futon. And while we > are > > here improve erica to fit your needs. > > > > FWIW I wrote exactly this for situp (the couchapp tool I did a while > back). I quickly came to the conclusion that pushing data to CouchDB was by > far the smaller part of the process and grunt did the rest better. I had > pre/post processors that let me call out to external apps to build > markdown, lint js, minify js, compile less, minify css, build docco docs > etc. which all ended up being calls to grunt. The fact that you can push an > app into CouchDB from grunt made situp somewhat irrelevant. > > I know erica has more features than situp (e.g. the web based app builder > gui) but I still prefer grunt+bbb for three reasons: > > 1. it does all the build/compile/test/lint stuff today, and is very well > tested and documented > 2. it's community is much larger than ours (e.g. its the build tool of > jquery) > 3. it enforces some "best practice" > > All that said, if erica develops the same (or similar) feature set > (notably being able to push "CouchApps defined in a json file" as well as > "CouchApps defined in the file system") then I don't see a reason to not > use it. I have no particularly strong attachment to grunt, it's just seems > to currently be the best tool for the job. > Cheers > Simon > >
