Phil I see a problem of mixing your build code with the production codebase, if you separate them the clean_db build code can be compiled (or fully build - as it own project) before it is needed in the test part of the production build.
I know that you mostly compare rake and ant - but you also bring maven into the picture. Although ant and maven both use xml to specify the build, maven work on a much higher abstractions level. I just started using maven after years using ant - hopefully i do not need to go back. I agree with Dick - If it was more flexible it was easier to work with. If it was possible the disable lifecycles directly from the pom - a disabling of the install phase would had helped Dick with his big war files. The deploy plugin has such a skip property - the install plugin has not - direct liftcycle control will make it possible to override plugin behavior. It is ok that the build is defined in xml - as long as it is done at the right abstraction level. Scripting is ok - but it must not bring us back to defining all of the "what to do" instead of "what to get" with standard layout, conventions, and configuration. /peter On Nov 26, 4:08 am, "Mark Derricutt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Given this thread it'd be great if the posse could get Kelly O'Hair to > talk about JMake: > > http://blogs.sun.com/kto/entry/jmake_source_repository_formerly_called > > "This was formerly called the javamake utility > fromhttp://www.experimentalstuff.com/Technologies/JavaMake/index.html. > This tool's functionality is analogous to the "smart checking" feature > of Borland JBuilder or the dependency analysis feature of IBM Jikes. > However, it is a command line tool that is not tied to any IDE, can be > used with any Java compiler, and can run as a task in the popular Ant > make system." > > It'd be interesting to hear about, esp. with the ties to JBuilder. > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Bill Robertson > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How is rake (dependency checking + ruby) better than make (dependency > > checking + shell commands)? Or is rake more than that? I guess it > > might be more portable. > > > Did anybody watch the 50 in 50 talk? Were they comparing rake to JCL? > > > On Nov 25, 12:39 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> On Nov 24, 9:00 pm, Casper Bang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > Why the requirement it be interpreted? > > >> it makes it difficult to leverage the proejct code. If a build is > >> compiled and it references existing code then the build won't compile > >> until the existing code is compiled. I ran into this exact scenario > >> with Gant. What I have to do is have two scripts, one that just > >> compiles the code with no references to project code (just a compile > >> task) and another build script that references the project code. > > >> It's awkward and confusing.... > > -- > "It is easier to optimize correct code than to correct optimized > code." -- Bill Harlan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
