> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 6:45 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JJAR] Keeping it interesting :)
>
>
> At 02:27 7/5/01 -0400, Steve Downey wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 10:14 AM
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Subject: Re: [JJAR] Keeping it interesting :)
> >>
> >> >I think "most java devlopers have started to use ant" is
> a very long
> >> >stretch, IMHO.
> >>
> >> I would modify that to most java developers who don't use an
> >> IDE use ant -
> >> would you agree with that?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I wouldn't. Most java developers who don't use an IDE use
> make files. In
> >fact many who do use an IDE use make files.
> >
> >Ant is still fairly new, afterall.
>
> I am curious - could you point to a few companies where this
> is so? I hvae
> looked around locally and there is only one company that I
> have had contact
> with that still uses make for java- mainly thats because the
> majority of
> their work is c. Though I believe that they will be switching
> real soon now.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
Well, my company, Netfolio, for one. We're looking at switching to ant, but
have to replicate a few make targets as ant tasks before it's feasible. In
particular, launching the app server that was just built in a separate VM,
waiting for it to bootstrap, and then running the test suite, has been a bit
tricky.
I know projects at JPMorgan, Bear Stearns and a couple consulting houses
that use make. At the big shops it's often because of the combination of
Java and native code. No one is seriously proposing, at this point, to
rewrite analytics libraries in Java. They're providing JNI interfaces. Or
CORBA. It's the early adopters that are using make, the ones with a
significant investment in existing code.
Once the investment in make is made, it's hard to switch. It's a lot of
reimplementation work, and the payoff is marginal. We're doing it mostly
because we're switching to Tomcat from JRun, and don't want two build
technologies.
Now, the reason to use make, rather than an IDE's internal build, is to have
a repeatable stable build process. Most IDE's are OK through making a jar
file, but most suck at an end to end build. Thinks like running the test
cases, tagging the release, rolling up the release kit, and so on.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>This electronic mail transmission
may contain confidential information and is intended only for the person(s)
named. Any use, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify
the sender via e-mail. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
