Hi Matt. As one of creators of iTest let me put it this way: iTest cares no less about particular build system of a project it is trying to test as far as produced artifacts are reasonably managed.
The whole Gradle idea is _completely_ great. Here're the reasons: - programming in XML sucks. For real. If you need to describe dependency using XML - sure, why not. Once you need to do something beyond that or more than Maven has been created to do - you literally has no choice there. That's why nice people in Maven community had to add an ability to in-line Groovy scripts into poms: because Maven is a very rigid build system. I don't want to start any flame throwing, but there are things Maven is good for and things it isn't suitable. Having custom logic in the build without creating 3215th plugin is one of the latter. - having a better way of creating integration test artifacts and a flexible entry point into their execution is a very smart move. I wish I wasn't lazy and looked at it in the earlier stage of iTest... - iTest was/is successfully working with 0.20.203+, 0.22, and 0.23 and everyone of these has its own build systems, which are really very different except for one thing: they all produce Maven artifacts. So, the answer to your question is no: Hadoop stack's component builds will/should remain where Hadoop dev. community wants it to be. BTW, >> Groovy is much nicer to code than XML. is a brilliant assertion: coding in the real dynamic OOP language is much more pleasant than doing so in XML ;) Hope it clears some of the confusion. Cos On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 01:24PM, Matt Foley wrote: > Looking at Gradle, I found this disconcerting statement ( > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1163173/why-use-gradle-instead-of-ant-or-maven): > > > Groovy is much nicer to code than XML. > > > Are you proposing that we manage the build system in Groovy? > Unless the whole ecosystem can be moved in this direction, I would > recommend against it. > > --Matt > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Tom White <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 to lowering the barrier to entry for contributing new tests (#7). > > > > Also, rather than introduce a new build system, why not improve the > > plugin (failsafe) if it has deficiencies? > > > > Tom > > > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Folks, > > > > > > one of the biggest challenges that I'd like to tackle post Bigtop > > > 0.2.0 is increasing > > > the scope, coverage and robustness of the iTest and its test artifacts. > > To that > > > end I've started a Wiki page outlining the issues: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BIGTOP/iTest.next > > > > > > Feel free to contribute and I really hope we can spend some time at > > ApacheCON > > > talking about that. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Roman. > > > > >
