On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected]> wrote:
> Another item of interest is the fact that Maven plugins are dead easy to > use. Just stick the plugin dependency in the POM, and that plugin will be > emerged and available for use. It would be nice if Buildr had a central > extensions repo of the same ilk. Right now, Buildr extensions (other than > the "official" ones) are pretty-much ad hoc .rake files that are passed > from > person-to-person. How about Ruby Gems? http://buildr.apache.org/more_stuff.html#using_gems >From the lack of people complaining about it, I guess no body is using it. Maybe we need to put more emphasis on it? Or figure out something better? Assaf > > > Daniel > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > - Download sources (there is a JIRA issue for this) > > - Artifact specification by SCM (e.g. depend on trunk/ version of > > Wicket, which will cause Buildr/Maven to checkout the artifact and > invoke > > its POM, installing into local repo of build was successful) > > - *any* bizarre Maven plugin > > > > I honestly don't believe that the last issue is worth worrying about. As > a > > user, I would expect that functionality which was designed specifically > for > > Maven will indeed require maven to execute. The Java.net artifact > installer > > is an example of this. It's doable within Buildr, but it would have to > be > > done in a different way using a Buildr-specific extension (as opposed to > the > > current Maven-specific extension/plugin). > > > > Source downloading and SCM-dependencies are very doable and would serve > to > > nicely round-out Buildr as a drop-in Maven replacement. Sources are > > particularly relevant for IDEs (content assist). I've seen fewer > projects > > with SCM dependencies, but they do indeed exist (e.g. the Teachscape > > internal application often depends upon the trunk/ version of Wicket and > > several of its sub-projects). > > > > Daniel > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Alexis Midon <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> could you be more specific and list these things Buildr does not satisfy > >> out > >> of the box? this could be a good source of inspiration for future > >> improvements. > >> > >> Alexis > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > In principle, I agree that the POM converter should just work. > >> There's > >> > a > >> > > > lot of stuff that Maven does that Buildr doesn't immediately > >> satisfy, > >> > > What do you mean, do you have an example for this? > >> > > >> > > >> > In general, anything which requires a Maven plugin is unsatisfiable in > >> > Buildr out of the box. That's not to say that you can't write a > little > >> bit > >> > of Ruby to handle it for you, but it's not as immediate as in Maven > >> > (obviously, because the plugin was designed for Maven and not Buildr). > >> For > >> > example, things like java.net artifact installation. Also, Maven > does > >> > things like downloading source (when available) and even checking out > a > >> > project from an SCM, building it and installing into your local repo. > >> > Again, Buildr is *capable* of all these things, but that doesn't mean > it > >> > fully supports them out of the box. > >> > > >> > Daniel > >> > > >> > > > > >
