Replying to both posts in one email ...
@Niclas: Yes we had thought of that ... as far as I remember it, it was
considered an option as the project grows. If we split it up now, this would
result in 6 repos (build-tools, protocols, java, c++, c# and python) ... this
would result in every release having to release and vote on at least 5
sub-releases. So I think we decided to keep things in one for now, however if
the to-be RMs have no problems executing such mass-releases and the PMC also
has no problems on verifying and voting on them, it would be an option. However
probably quite a bit of the build would have to be replicated in multiple repos
(Thrift)
@Tim: Guess that would be quite the same as my suggestion nr. 1, I agree ... by
adding it to the groovy it would have the benefit of us not having to maintain
this scripts that must function in multiple environments. I just totally suck
at BASH and BAT scripting ... the Groovy script executed in the build even has
the benefit of being debugable in IntelliJ, which was quite a big help. But if
someone is willing to implement such scripts and maintain them I wouldn't
object.
Chris
Am 15.10.19, 10:46 schrieb "Tim Mitsch" <t.mit...@pragmaticindustries.de>:
Hey everybody,
First of all it's a very good idea to simply the profile-stuff.
My thoughts to that are that we maybe could add a little shell-script
(Mac/Linux), bat-file (Windows) that guides the user ("Do you want to build
Java-sources? [Yes/No]) and states if all requirements for build of this
profile is supplied by the specific machine of the user. I think that goes in
the direction of Chris suggestion 1)
Furthermore it would be good to supply a "with-all" Profile that triggers
all available profiles.
Best
Tim
Am 15.10.19, 10:07 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>:
Hi all,
as I have heard complaints that the current way we handle profiles is
too complicated, I would like to discuss alternatives with you all.
Currently if you just run “./mvnw install” it will only build the
protocols. This is probably not what the user wants.
Right now we didn’t want to overwhelm someone just wanting to build
Java, which will probably be the most common case to configure all the
prerequisites for C++ and C#.
So we introduced the “with-xyz” profiles. Now you only need to provide
the tooling needed for the parts you want to build, which reduces the entry
barrier (in my opinion)
On the other hand we didn’t want people working on C++ and C# to have
to run the Java test-suite before committing.
But it seems that having to enable profiles already raises the barrier
too high and people get confused instead of relieved. This was not planned and
therefore we need to react.
Yesterday I did a little brainstorming to what options I could think of
… perhaps you have others or you have feedback to them. Your opinion would be
highly appreciated:
1. If no “with-xyz” profile is activated, a message is output which
tells the user it should enable a profile (This should be very simple to
implement)
2. We make the “with-java” profile “enabled by default” (if no
profile is enabled, this one is automatically enabled, making the naïve
developer just trying “mvn package” scceed)
3. We remove all profiles and ask people to go into “plc4j” to build
the java part, into “sandbox” if they want to build the sandbox (We could add
the suggestion to use “-am” to the build which will “also build” any outside
modules needed by the current selection)
Here my thoughts to the approaches:
1. This shouldn’t have any negative side-effects (I personally would
prefer this … we could even try make it “interactive” where the user can select
the options he wants enabled and it generates a “command line” the user can use
to build what he wants)
2. The problem with enabled by default profiles is that they get
disabled if a profile is explicitly selected. So if a user builds “mvn package”
it would build java. But if he runs “mvn -Pwith-cpp package” it would only
build C++ and no longer java … if you want java and C++ you would need to do
“mvn -Pwith-java,with-cpp package” (Not that intuitive, I think … but an option)
3. This will cause the “mvn package” type of persons to be flooded
with a list of things to install and the build will take pretty long. As they
will probably always have some prerequisite not installed and the build will
not start with an explanation on why, we could use this opportunity to also
point out that you don’t have to install all prerequisites if you only want to
build part of the project. In this case too we would have to split the
prerequisite check to the individual submodules or people will be left without
guidance when building only “plc4cpp” for example … so we would have the big
check in the root and multiple partial checks in the sub-directories.
I personally would prefer the version 1), but let’s discuss this.
Perhaps you have other ideas … I would be happy to hear and discuss
them.
Chris
