This thread and some other thoughts I have banging around in head (like
how to get rid of "build.sh" in DRLVM) is really a subject for everyone,
not DRLVM.
A) The iterated unit test approach has shown lots of benefit, and we'd
like to add it as at least some kind of option to the build system, so
that CI systems can invoke a classlib unit test run (and DRLVM unit test
run) iteratively in the same VM. The simplest solution is the
ant-contrib "for" loop, but IIRC, this needs to be either on the
classpath or in ant/lib.
B) The DRLVM build system requires a bat/sh to launch ant, to achieve
the same purpose - to preload a bunch of stuff onto the classpath.
First question - is there a way to dynamically add via cmdline or -ish
things to the classpath for ant? (Paging Matt Benson...)
Second - if not, can we do the equiv of an exec() with ant ? create a
'top level' build.xml that when invoked, fixes up the classpath and
re-invokes ant using the new classpath, passing through all command line
params and targets?
Finally - if we can't do anything like this, does anyone mind if we
create additional detritus in ant/lib like we do with ecj.jar? We can
make it automatic, I suppose, but I'm always squeamish about dropping
stuff into ant/lib
geir
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Sorry - I missed this yesterday for some reason
Alexei Fedotov wrote:
Geir,
I support your point - a developer who resolves an intermittent issue
needs a painless way to check his resolution.
That, and we need to see if we are creating new intermittent issues.
I see two ways to implement it:
* Automatically generate a build script: Egor posted me a feedback
that it is not quite readable approach.
I thought of this, and figure it's our last resort.
* Use <for> ant-contrib task: this adds ant-contrib dependency to the
class library build system.
Sure - but can we make that optional? No... I guess not.
* Make a clone from <junit> task: this adds a dependency from ANT
source base.
Source? Doesn't it just add a dep on the ant binary for building our tool?
All,
Before starting a patch discussion let me ask which of three do you
think is a better approach?
This is buried here... this needs a new thread...
geir
