Re: ApacheCon / Thoughtworks TechRadar

2012-11-12 Thread Antoine Toulme
FWIW the all-in-one bundle was there before and Alex coded most if not all
of it :)

If I remember correctly, building the all-in-one is supported by a rake
task.


On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Peter Donald pe...@realityforge.org wrote:

 Huya,

 On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Tammo van Lessen tvanles...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  First, I got a Buildr talk accepted at ApacheCon EU in Sinsheim, Germany,
  which I held just yesterday.

 congrats!

  I got a lot of positive feedback, people seem
  to like the buildr idea although it also seems that Maven improved since
  the inception of Buildr and some things are less worse. The most visible
  argument against buildr was, however, that people are used to use Maven
 and
  that, if they want to make their project accessible for a broad audience,
  they think they'd need to stick to Maven.

 That does seem to be a common view.

  I guess Gradle tries to address
  this issue by providing a gradle-wrapper, which is a small jar file
 along
  a shell script that you can include into your project and that will
  bootstrap a gradle installation automatically. I also figured, that still
  many Java developers don't have rubies at hand and don't know how to
 easily
  install a gem.

 And one stage, Antoine was working on the all-in-one distribution
 that essentially bundled a version of jruby with buildr and all it's
 dependencies in one easy installer. I wonder if we could work on this
 to ease adoption of buildr for the casual user.

 Where I work we use Chef (http://www.opscode.com/chef/) extensively
 and they release their tool in omnibus editions that are essentially
 a complete version of ruby for n-different platforms. They preinstall
 the chef gems in the ruby they distribute but they make sure that the
 only things that are added to the path are the che executables. I
 wonder if this would be a good thing for us to consider?

  Second, I stumbled upon ThoughtWorks TechRadar [2]. In particular, I
 liked
  the first paragraph of the Tools section ;)

 It is kinda neat. Possibly the best thing we can do is to increase
 awareness ... I think your approach to giving a talk is a good idea.

 --
 Cheers,

 Peter Donald



Re: ApacheCon / Thoughtworks TechRadar

2012-11-12 Thread Michel Guymon

Heya Tammo,

So the goal LockJar is to provide a list of transitive dependencies that 
is consistent over time. This is why the dependency information is 
stored in the Jarfile.lock. Every dependency for a project should be 
resolved to the Jarfile.lock. This prevents conflicts that can appear 
from ad hoc resolution of dependencies when their transitive 
dependencies overlap.


LockJar already has the concept of group. There is always the default 
group, but you can add any additional group you want. All of LockJar's 
actions (list,load,etc) can handle group.


The perk of the LockJar integration is it automatically populates the 
compile and test task classpaths. That being said, the integration with 
LockJar does not have to be used. I am a bit basis, but I like seeing 
the dependency information in the buildfile. You can actually skip the 
locking and have LockJar resolve every time using something along the 
lines of:


   dependencies = LockJar.list ( :resolve = true ) do
  jar 'org.eclipse.jetty:example-jetty-embedded:jar:8.1.2.v20120308'
   end
   
   compile.with project('api'), dependencies

Or if you want to use a single Jarfile for all projects, than you could call

   dependencies = LockJar.list(['test'])
   ...
   test.with project('api'), dependencies

So, uh, I should point out I have not updated LockJar's buildr 
integration lately, since I have been in the land RoR. Mostly I have not 
put much time into it, since there does not appear to be a lot of 
interest in it.


thanks,
Michael

On 11/10/2012 06:46 AM, Tammo van Lessen wrote:

Hi Michel,

I did have a look at lock_jar and I really like the idea. Since I like on
one hand Mavens magic resolution for bootstrapping a projects, on the other
hand I also want to have the control over the dependencies. What I usually
do is running something like

pp transitive(LOGBACK).map {|a| a.to_spec}

and copy the result into my buildfile. lockjar could automate this for me,
right?

However, it was difficult to me to grok how a real-world multi-project
buildr file would look like. If I'm not mistaken, I would need to add all
dependencies separately to the projects using the lock_jar dsl? I'd love if
there would be a more unobtrusive way like saying

compile.with project('api'), lock(AXIS2, AXIOM, OPENJPA)
test.with lock(TESTNG)

and lockjar would use this information to create the lockfile
(automatically if not there, otherwise on demand) and return a resolved set
of dependencies. The lock method could also take an optional group
parameter in order to define independent resolution groups. Still open
would be the question how excludes or pinned versions could be expressed.

Do you think such an integration would useful or feasible?

Thanks,
   Tammo


On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Michel Guymon michael.guy...@gmail.comwrote:


Hi,

I figure I would pile onto the Buildr vs Maven discussion, this will be a
little non sequitur.

What I have been doing is using Maven for project info, mostly defining
dependencies and where to deploy to. This is what Maven is actually good
at, project markup. The perk is all the existing tools can continue to work
with the Project's POM. Everything else I do is handled by Buildr. Using
LockJar[1] to import the deps and deployment info from the POM, I am able
to build and deploy my artifacts from Buildr.

I find this is the sweet spot, being able to live in a Maven world but
still able to build my artifacts the way I need to with Buildr. God help me
if I ever have to use and XML build tool again. . .

thanks,
Michael


[1] 
https://github.com/mguymon/**lock_jar#buildr-integrationhttps://github.com/mguymon/lock_jar#buildr-integration
https://github.com/mguymon/**lock_jarhttps://github.com/mguymon/lock_jar

On 11/09/2012 10:04 PM, Peter Donald wrote:


Huya,

On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Tammo van Lessen tvanles...@gmail.com
wrote:


First, I got a Buildr talk accepted at ApacheCon EU in Sinsheim, Germany,
which I held just yesterday.


congrats!

  I got a lot of positive feedback, people seem

to like the buildr idea although it also seems that Maven improved since
the inception of Buildr and some things are less worse. The most visible
argument against buildr was, however, that people are used to use Maven
and
that, if they want to make their project accessible for a broad audience,
they think they'd need to stick to Maven.


That does seem to be a common view.

  I guess Gradle tries to address

this issue by providing a gradle-wrapper, which is a small jar file
along
a shell script that you can include into your project and that will
bootstrap a gradle installation automatically. I also figured, that still
many Java developers don't have rubies at hand and don't know how to
easily
install a gem.


And one stage, Antoine was working on the all-in-one distribution
that essentially bundled a version of jruby with buildr and all it's
dependencies in one easy installer. I wonder if we could work on this
to ease 

Re: ApacheCon / Thoughtworks TechRadar

2012-11-10 Thread Tammo van Lessen
Hi Michel,

I did have a look at lock_jar and I really like the idea. Since I like on
one hand Mavens magic resolution for bootstrapping a projects, on the other
hand I also want to have the control over the dependencies. What I usually
do is running something like

pp transitive(LOGBACK).map {|a| a.to_spec}

and copy the result into my buildfile. lockjar could automate this for me,
right?

However, it was difficult to me to grok how a real-world multi-project
buildr file would look like. If I'm not mistaken, I would need to add all
dependencies separately to the projects using the lock_jar dsl? I'd love if
there would be a more unobtrusive way like saying

compile.with project('api'), lock(AXIS2, AXIOM, OPENJPA)
test.with lock(TESTNG)

and lockjar would use this information to create the lockfile
(automatically if not there, otherwise on demand) and return a resolved set
of dependencies. The lock method could also take an optional group
parameter in order to define independent resolution groups. Still open
would be the question how excludes or pinned versions could be expressed.

Do you think such an integration would useful or feasible?

Thanks,
  Tammo


On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Michel Guymon michael.guy...@gmail.comwrote:


 Hi,

 I figure I would pile onto the Buildr vs Maven discussion, this will be a
 little non sequitur.

 What I have been doing is using Maven for project info, mostly defining
 dependencies and where to deploy to. This is what Maven is actually good
 at, project markup. The perk is all the existing tools can continue to work
 with the Project's POM. Everything else I do is handled by Buildr. Using
 LockJar[1] to import the deps and deployment info from the POM, I am able
 to build and deploy my artifacts from Buildr.

 I find this is the sweet spot, being able to live in a Maven world but
 still able to build my artifacts the way I need to with Buildr. God help me
 if I ever have to use and XML build tool again. . .

 thanks,
 Michael


 [1] 
 https://github.com/mguymon/**lock_jar#buildr-integrationhttps://github.com/mguymon/lock_jar#buildr-integration
 https://github.com/mguymon/**lock_jarhttps://github.com/mguymon/lock_jar
 


 On 11/09/2012 10:04 PM, Peter Donald wrote:

 Huya,

 On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Tammo van Lessen tvanles...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 First, I got a Buildr talk accepted at ApacheCon EU in Sinsheim, Germany,
 which I held just yesterday.

 congrats!

  I got a lot of positive feedback, people seem
 to like the buildr idea although it also seems that Maven improved since
 the inception of Buildr and some things are less worse. The most visible
 argument against buildr was, however, that people are used to use Maven
 and
 that, if they want to make their project accessible for a broad audience,
 they think they'd need to stick to Maven.

 That does seem to be a common view.

  I guess Gradle tries to address
 this issue by providing a gradle-wrapper, which is a small jar file
 along
 a shell script that you can include into your project and that will
 bootstrap a gradle installation automatically. I also figured, that still
 many Java developers don't have rubies at hand and don't know how to
 easily
 install a gem.

 And one stage, Antoine was working on the all-in-one distribution
 that essentially bundled a version of jruby with buildr and all it's
 dependencies in one easy installer. I wonder if we could work on this
 to ease adoption of buildr for the casual user.

 Where I work we use Chef (http://www.opscode.com/chef/) extensively
 and they release their tool in omnibus editions that are essentially
 a complete version of ruby for n-different platforms. They preinstall
 the chef gems in the ruby they distribute but they make sure that the
 only things that are added to the path are the che executables. I
 wonder if this would be a good thing for us to consider?

  Second, I stumbled upon ThoughtWorks TechRadar [2]. In particular, I
 liked
 the first paragraph of the Tools section ;)

 It is kinda neat. Possibly the best thing we can do is to increase
 awareness ... I think your approach to giving a talk is a good idea.





-- 
Tammo van Lessen - http://www.taval.de


Re: ApacheCon / Thoughtworks TechRadar

2012-11-09 Thread Peter Donald
Huya,

On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Tammo van Lessen tvanles...@gmail.com wrote:
 First, I got a Buildr talk accepted at ApacheCon EU in Sinsheim, Germany,
 which I held just yesterday.

congrats!

 I got a lot of positive feedback, people seem
 to like the buildr idea although it also seems that Maven improved since
 the inception of Buildr and some things are less worse. The most visible
 argument against buildr was, however, that people are used to use Maven and
 that, if they want to make their project accessible for a broad audience,
 they think they'd need to stick to Maven.

That does seem to be a common view.

 I guess Gradle tries to address
 this issue by providing a gradle-wrapper, which is a small jar file along
 a shell script that you can include into your project and that will
 bootstrap a gradle installation automatically. I also figured, that still
 many Java developers don't have rubies at hand and don't know how to easily
 install a gem.

And one stage, Antoine was working on the all-in-one distribution
that essentially bundled a version of jruby with buildr and all it's
dependencies in one easy installer. I wonder if we could work on this
to ease adoption of buildr for the casual user.

Where I work we use Chef (http://www.opscode.com/chef/) extensively
and they release their tool in omnibus editions that are essentially
a complete version of ruby for n-different platforms. They preinstall
the chef gems in the ruby they distribute but they make sure that the
only things that are added to the path are the che executables. I
wonder if this would be a good thing for us to consider?

 Second, I stumbled upon ThoughtWorks TechRadar [2]. In particular, I liked
 the first paragraph of the Tools section ;)

It is kinda neat. Possibly the best thing we can do is to increase
awareness ... I think your approach to giving a talk is a good idea.

-- 
Cheers,

Peter Donald


Re: ApacheCon / Thoughtworks TechRadar

2012-11-09 Thread Michel Guymon


Hi,

I figure I would pile onto the Buildr vs Maven discussion, this will be 
a little non sequitur.


What I have been doing is using Maven for project info, mostly defining 
dependencies and where to deploy to. This is what Maven is actually good 
at, project markup. The perk is all the existing tools can continue to 
work with the Project's POM. Everything else I do is handled by Buildr. 
Using LockJar[1] to import the deps and deployment info from the POM, I 
am able to build and deploy my artifacts from Buildr.


I find this is the sweet spot, being able to live in a Maven world but 
still able to build my artifacts the way I need to with Buildr. God help 
me if I ever have to use and XML build tool again. . .


thanks,
Michael


[1] https://github.com/mguymon/lock_jar#buildr-integration 
https://github.com/mguymon/lock_jar


On 11/09/2012 10:04 PM, Peter Donald wrote:

Huya,

On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Tammo van Lessen tvanles...@gmail.com wrote:

First, I got a Buildr talk accepted at ApacheCon EU in Sinsheim, Germany,
which I held just yesterday.

congrats!


I got a lot of positive feedback, people seem
to like the buildr idea although it also seems that Maven improved since
the inception of Buildr and some things are less worse. The most visible
argument against buildr was, however, that people are used to use Maven and
that, if they want to make their project accessible for a broad audience,
they think they'd need to stick to Maven.

That does seem to be a common view.


I guess Gradle tries to address
this issue by providing a gradle-wrapper, which is a small jar file along
a shell script that you can include into your project and that will
bootstrap a gradle installation automatically. I also figured, that still
many Java developers don't have rubies at hand and don't know how to easily
install a gem.

And one stage, Antoine was working on the all-in-one distribution
that essentially bundled a version of jruby with buildr and all it's
dependencies in one easy installer. I wonder if we could work on this
to ease adoption of buildr for the casual user.

Where I work we use Chef (http://www.opscode.com/chef/) extensively
and they release their tool in omnibus editions that are essentially
a complete version of ruby for n-different platforms. They preinstall
the chef gems in the ruby they distribute but they make sure that the
only things that are added to the path are the che executables. I
wonder if this would be a good thing for us to consider?


Second, I stumbled upon ThoughtWorks TechRadar [2]. In particular, I liked
the first paragraph of the Tools section ;)

It is kinda neat. Possibly the best thing we can do is to increase
awareness ... I think your approach to giving a talk is a good idea.