Maybe we're thinking about Hackystat-Maven integration in the wrong
way. The current approach is going to lead to dozens of modules
called hackySensor_<Sensor>Maven, each of which will contain very
little actual code (the JUnit maven module basically contains a
single class with maybe 100 LOC.)
Well, we once had a hackyAnt module in version 6 that did something
similar. In version 7 we decided to split up that module into
different modules. I didn't want to make the same mistake.
Here's an idea, why don't I just add the code to
hackySensor_JUnit? That might complicate things, but that idea seems
like the "right" idea. Since there could be an Ant, Command Line, and
Maven sensors. Does hackySensor_JUnit stand for all sensors that deal
with JUnit or does that mean only Ant based Junit sensors?
Anyway... I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other.
So, I suppose I'll try hackySensor_Maven and see if I can create the
necessary Maven pom.xml stuff.
thanks, aaron
At 02:35 PM 2/20/2006, Philip Johnson wrote:
> I think I like [the current] approach better, because I'm not sure how to
> create a Maven pom.xml file that will separate the maven plugins in
> the hackySensor_Maven approach.
Maybe we're thinking about Hackystat-Maven integration in the wrong
way. The current approach is going to lead to dozens of modules
called hackySensor_<Sensor>Maven, each of which will contain very
little actual code (the JUnit maven module basically contains a
single class with maybe 100 LOC.)
Instead, why not have one single module called hackySensor_Maven
that builds a single jar file containing all of the sensors? Then,
for the pom issue, you have a choice of either:
(a) a single pom.xml file that can define all of the sensors and
control whether they're enabled.
(b) ant tasks to generate an individual pom.xml file for each
sensor. Each sensor would refer to the same hackymaven.jar file (or
whatever it's called).
Would this work?
> Currently, I'm under the impression that we have to build the maven
> sensors (plugins) with Maven, because Maven creates the packaging
> structure that the plugins need. However, its my belief that we
> can
> still build (compile and test) these hackySensor_<name>Maven
> modules
> with our current Ant build process; we just can't deploy them in
> the
> same manner.
Actually, they won't integrate into the daily build correctly---as I
mentioned before, the FindBugs analysis will blow up on these
modules once we have them and FindBugs in the daily build together.
So, we're going to have to do something.
Cheers,
Philip
