Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
[me] Now that ant.jar has been removed, the project is slightly less friendly to eclipse since ant.jar is required by the files in org.apache.fop.tools.anttasks. It is easily solved locally, I just wanted to point it out. [Peter B. West] Finn, I've been trying to find an Eclipse-clean way to solve this one. How did you do it? The same way that I locally solved the Jimi and JAI dependency: copy d:\java\ant-1.5.1\lib\ant.jar lib and adding the .jar to the Java Build Path/Libraries. regards, finn
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
Finn Bock wrote: [me] Now that ant.jar has been removed, the project is slightly less friendly to eclipse since ant.jar is required by the files in org.apache.fop.tools.anttasks. It is easily solved locally, I just wanted to point it out. [Peter B. West] Finn, I've been trying to find an Eclipse-clean way to solve this one. How did you do it? The same way that I locally solved the Jimi and JAI dependency: copy d:\java\ant-1.5.1\lib\ant.jar lib and adding the .jar to the Java Build Path/Libraries. I'm using 3.0 M5, and I have just defined a classpath variable for the ant.jar in eclipse/plugins. Eclipse lets me add the variable to the classpath for the project. Peter -- Peter B. West http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
Finn Bock wrote: The same way that I locally solved the Jimi and JAI dependency: copy d:\java\ant-1.5.1\lib\ant.jar lib and adding the .jar to the Java Build Path/Libraries. You don't need the copy, you can add external jars as well. J.Pietschmann
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
[Jeremias Maerki] I've removed the embedded Ant in HEAD. I rewrote build.bat and build.sh to call a separately installed Ant. Instructions will be given on the command-line if Ant cannot be found. Now that ant.jar has been removed, the project is slightly less friendly to eclipse since ant.jar is required by the files in org.apache.fop.tools.anttasks. It is easily solved locally, I just wanted to point it out. regards, finn
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
Finn Bock wrote: Now that ant.jar has been removed, the project is slightly less friendly to eclipse since ant.jar is required by the files in org.apache.fop.tools.anttasks. It is easily solved locally, I just wanted to point it out. Finn, I've been trying to find an Eclipse-clean way to solve this one. How did you do it? Peter -- Peter B. West http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
Jeremias Maerki wrote: I've removed the embedded Ant in HEAD. I rewrote build.bat and build.sh to call a separately installed Ant. Instructions will be given on the command-line if Ant cannot be found. Peter, please test build.sh on Unix. I hope I got the whole thing right. Jeremias, It compiles when ANT_HOME is defined and valid, and gives the instructions when it's not defined. Do you need more extensive test run? Peter -- Peter B. West http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
No, I guess that's what was needed. Thanks. On 14.12.2003 09:57:50 Peter B. West wrote: Jeremias Maerki wrote: I've removed the embedded Ant in HEAD. I rewrote build.bat and build.sh to call a separately installed Ant. Instructions will be given on the command-line if Ant cannot be found. Peter, please test build.sh on Unix. I hope I got the whole thing right. Jeremias, It compiles when ANT_HOME is defined and valid, and gives the instructions when it's not defined. Do you need more extensive test run? Jeremias Maerki
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
I've removed the embedded Ant in HEAD. I rewrote build.bat and build.sh to call a separately installed Ant. Instructions will be given on the command-line if Ant cannot be found. Peter, please test build.sh on Unix. I hope I got the whole thing right. Jeremias Maerki
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
Well done--I particularly liked the Ant instructions you added. Glen --- Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've removed the embedded Ant in HEAD. I rewrote build.bat and build.sh to call a separately installed Ant. Instructions will be given on the command-line if Ant cannot be found. Peter, please test build.sh on Unix. I hope I got the whole thing right. Jeremias Maerki __ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
Peter B. West wrote: In the medium term, I think some sort of protocol for provides/requires and versioning will have to be established for matching jars. It has always galled me that everyone bundles everything to ensure that a particular application runs. Short: use Maven. What does mavenizing entail? Write a project.xml file which describes the project on a higher level than the ant build file. Whether that's really easy for FOP with all the weirdness and conditional compiles is another matter. Because Maven downloads dependencies from a repository, we could outsource some more common stuff more easy, and the source distro becomes leaner. J.Pietschmann
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
I don't think so, as potential fop-dev have to learn about other things, too, especially CVS and how to build patches. I think that's a lot more complicated than having to install Ant. fop-devs can be expected to know about Ant because almost every Open Source project written in Java I've encountered uses an Ant-based build (or a build system based on Ant like Maven or Centipede). Actually every Java developer can today be expected to know about Ant because it is the de-facto standard for Java builds. Simple users on the other side shouldn't be expected to build FOP. They should never have a reason to rebuild FOP. If they do we've probably failed to do every thing right. Here are some of Apache's Java projects I checked: - Xindice: build.bat/sh references separately installed Ant - Xerces-J: embedded Ant - Xalan-J: embedded Ant - xml-security: only build.xml, not batch files, requires Ant - Forrest: embedded Ant - Crimson: only build.xml, not batch files, requires Ant - XML Commons: only build.xml, not batch files, requires Ant - Cocoon 2.x: embedded Ant - Batik: embedded Ant - WS SOAP: only build.xml, not batch files, requires Ant - WS Jaxme: only build.xml, not batch files, requires Ant - WS Axis: only build.xml, not batch files, requires Ant - WS JUDDI: only build.xml, not batch files, requires Ant - Maven: only build.xml, not batch files, requires Ant - James: embedded Ant - Velocity: not batch files, requires installed Maven - Tomcat 4: only build.xml, not batch files, requires Ant - Tapestry: Requires either installed Maven or Ant - Struts: Requires either installed Maven or Ant - Jakarta Regexp: only build.xml, not batch files, requires Ant - POI: only build.xml, not batch files, requires Ant - Log4J: only build.xml, not batch files, requires Ant - Geronimo: not batch files, requires installed Maven - Avalon Framework: Requires either installed Maven or Ant On 11.12.2003 23:08:49 Michael Reiche wrote: I absolutely agree, you will loose potential fop-devs. Do NOT remove ant/build. I just recently discovered the easy all-in-one power of the FOP src package. Download, unpack, fiddle with some .java, and run build.sh! I know nothing about the use of ant, and would have had to do some surfing before even getting to the point of doing a recompile. Well I might benefit from this in other cases, but the word build tell a lot more about the job than ant, and build.sh has worked very well for me. I'm sure there is a lot of other things that can be done, to cure whatever fired this idea. The fact that fired this idea was that the build behaved differently between running the installed and the embedded Ant. Some people will want to run the FOP build from their IDEs (like JBuilder and Eclipse). In this case they can't use the embedded Ant anyway. Jeremias Maerki
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
Jeremias, On Dec 12, 2003, at 7:13 AM, Jeremias Maerki wrote: I don't think so, as potential fop-dev have to learn about other things, too, especially CVS and how to build patches. I think that's a lot more complicated than having to install Ant. fop-devs can be expected to know about Ant because almost every Open Source project written in Java I've encountered uses an Ant-based build (or a build system based on Ant like Maven or Centipede). Actually every Java developer can today be expected to know about Ant because it is the de-facto standard for Java builds. Simple users on the other side shouldn't be expected to build FOP. They should never have a reason to rebuild FOP. If they do we've probably failed to do every thing right. Thanks for doing the legwork to get perspective on how important ant is. I'll definitely be saddling up (yeehaw!) and checking it out. However, I too don't think fop-users (maintenance branch anyway) should have to download and configure ant for their purposes. Since ant is a build tool, I guess if a fop-user downloads the binary version (pre-built), they won't have to worry about ant anyway, so that point is moot for binary fop-users. In any case, I don't think fop-users (maintenance branch) should have to download any more than necessary. I guess what this means, is that I think the Maintenance Branch should include ant in the source distribution, because I think it'll help limit traffic from people asking for help. Regardless of whether or not the Maintenance Branch includes ant, we may need to update the Build/Compiling page w more info on how to use ant (it currently contains a link to Ant--is that enough?). Clay -- There are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't. Web Maestro Clay [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
Jeremias Maerki wrote: Following a problem on fop-user I'd like to propose the removal of ant.jar and the build.bar/sh pair. I've heard that best practice is not to bundle Ant with a project, though I can't point you to a web page. It's reasonable to expect that everybody who wants to compile a Java program to install Ant because it's so widely used. I know it's convenient that you can download FOP and simply call build.bat but removing our own ant.jar makes the distribution smaller, removes potential error sources (such as the one uncovered on fop-user and provided we have a version check in our build.xml). If nobody objects I will try to find time during the weekend to do that. Jeremias, Removing ant, fair enough, but why the build scripts? Shouldn't they be extended a little to check for the presence of an ant installation and make appropriate noises if one isn't found? Peter -- Peter B. West http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
I can do that but someone will have to test the unix script for me. On 11.12.2003 10:33:34 Peter B. West wrote: Removing ant, fair enough, but why the build scripts? Shouldn't they be extended a little to check for the presence of an ant installation and make appropriate noises if one isn't found? Jeremias Maerki
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
Jeremias Maerki wrote: I can do that but someone will have to test the unix script for me. On 11.12.2003 10:33:34 Peter B. West wrote: Removing ant, fair enough, but why the build scripts? Shouldn't they be extended a little to check for the presence of an ant installation and make appropriate noises if one isn't found? Fire when ready. At the simplest level, we could check on unix for the availability of the 'ant' command. It does it's own checking for an ant installation (only in /opt, I think). Peter -- Peter B. West http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
I disagree on this point, if we're removing ant.jar, I don't see a need for continuing to maintain a build.sh and build.bat. Given that they must install Ant, it isn't too traumatic to next navigate to the fop working directory and type ant to make the build. (I'm not being sarcastic--the way our build.xml is constructed, ant is all you have to type!) Glen --- Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can do that but someone will have to test the unix script for me. On 11.12.2003 10:33:34 Peter B. West wrote: Removing ant, fair enough, but why the build scripts? Shouldn't they be extended a little to check for the presence of an ant installation and make appropriate noises if one isn't found? Jeremias Maerki __ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
Glen Mazza wrote: I disagree on this point, if we're removing ant.jar, I don't see a need for continuing to maintain a build.sh and build.bat. Given that they must install Ant, it isn't too traumatic to next navigate to the fop working directory and type ant to make the build. (I'm not being sarcastic--the way our build.xml is constructed, ant is all you have to type!) Hmhm. The unix version (build.sh) added *all* jars in the lib directory to the classpath, which made the drop into lib and call build.dh much easier. If this has to be done in build.xml, there's trouble ahead with jars containing release identifiers and such ugly stuff. Well, the build.bat had tis problem for ages. I'm contemplating mavenizing the build. I've got the personal advantage of working on commons-math which is also mavenized, and I have the repository already. OTOH I have no idea whether and how well mave would handle dependencies on Jimi, JAI, LotBC and other odd non-apache stuff. J.Pietschmann
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
I don't think ant should be removed from the maintenance branch. Granted, users of HEAD should be adept enough to install and configure ANT, but I think it is more important to make at least the maintenance branch of FOP easy to use, than it is to encourage them to install and configure ant. Right now, all you need to run FOP is Java 1.2+. Saddling users with more requirements probably won't encourage new users. One of the great things I love about fop-0.20.5, is that it includes everything I need to run it (xalan, xerces, etc.). It even includes a xalan.bat script (not included with xalan), which one of my colleagues used to transform an XML file with XSL. I believe that one of the goals for FOP is to get more fop-users (even if they're not going to be fop-devs). Web Maestro Clay p.s. I guess this means I get to add ant to my list of tools in my toolbox... :-) On Dec 10, 2003, at 9:08 PM, Glen Mazza wrote: +1 for HEAD, and I think it would be fine to remove it from maintenance as well. Glen
RE: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
Peter B. West wrote: Removing ant, fair enough, but why the build scripts? Shouldn't they be extended a little to check for the presence of an ant installation and make appropriate noises if one isn't found? I agree. Victor Mote
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
On tor, 2003-12-11 at 16:42, Clay Leeds wrote: I don't think ant should be removed from the maintenance branch. Granted, users of HEAD should be adept enough to install and configure ANT, but I think it is more important to make at least the maintenance branch of FOP easy to use, than it is to encourage them to install and configure ant. Right now, all you need to run FOP is Java 1.2+. Saddling users with more requirements probably won't encourage new users. One of the great things I love about fop-0.20.5, is that it includes everything I need to run it (xalan, xerces, etc.). It even includes a xalan.bat script (not included with xalan), which one of my colleagues used to transform an XML file with XSL. I believe that one of the goals for FOP is to get more fop-users (even if they're not going to be fop-devs). Web Maestro Clay p.s. I guess this means I get to add ant to my list of tools in my toolbox... :-) I absolutely agree, you will loose potential fop-devs. Do NOT remove ant/build. I just recently discovered the easy all-in-one power of the FOP src package. Download, unpack, fiddle with some .java, and run build.sh! I know nothing about the use of ant, and would have had to do some surfing before even getting to the point of doing a recompile. Well I might benefit from this in other cases, but the word build tell a lot more about the job than ant, and build.sh has worked very well for me. I'm sure there is a lot of other things that can be done, to cure whatever fired this idea. -- /Reiche
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
--- Clay Leeds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Web Maestro Clay p.s. I guess this means I get to add ant to my list of tools in my toolbox... :-) Yes, highly transportable skills in CVS and Ant may be the two biggest up-front goodies you get by working on FOP. Instructions: 1.) Download ant from ant.apache.org 2.) Set the ANT_HOME environment variable to where you expanded the ant project. (Similar to JAVA_HOME). 3.) Add the ant binary directory to your PATH so you can run ant anywhere. 4.) Navigate to the fop working directory and just type ant. It reads the default target (build goal) in build.xml and builds the project automatically. I believe Ant has won several developer-productivity awards--I don't think anyone's ever been saddled by knowing it! Glen __ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
J.Pietschmann wrote: Hmhm. The unix version (build.sh) added *all* jars in the lib directory to the classpath, which made the drop into lib and call build.dh much easier. If this has to be done in build.xml, there's trouble ahead with jars containing release identifiers and such ugly stuff. Well, the build.bat had tis problem for ages. In the medium term, I think some sort of protocol for provides/requires and versioning will have to be established for matching jars. It has always galled me that everyone bundles everything to ensure that a particular application runs. I'm contemplating mavenizing the build. I've got the personal advantage of working on commons-math which is also mavenized, and I have the repository already. OTOH I have no idea whether and how well mave would handle dependencies on Jimi, JAI, LotBC and other odd non-apache stuff. What does mavenizing entail? Incidentally, in the alt.design build, I have separated Version.java into its own package, and I compile it separately at the beginning of the build process to obtain version information for the rest of the build. A package is probably overkill. Fop.java and Version.java should probably belong to org.apache.fop. Peter -- Peter B. West http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove ant.jar and build.bat/sh
Great idea! Like CVS, Ant is highly beneficial to
learn, and it opens doors to many other open source
projects as well. So I think this a tool we should be
encouraging others to at least load on their machine.
+1 for HEAD, and I think it would be fine to remove it
from maintenance as well.
Glen
--- J.Pietschmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Following a problem on fop-user I'd like to
propose the removal of
ant.jar and the build.bar/sh pair.
+1 for HEAD.
In the long term, this means we have to make sure we
don't
have to give advice like Get the source dist,
change XY in
the code/add foo.jar to lib, and call
build.{bat|sh}
J.Pietschmann
__
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
