On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected]> wrote:
> I had actually forgotten about Buildr's integration with Gems. It does > make > sense to utilize this feature, but it doesn't seem to be widely understood, > and thus not really used. Perhaps this is a documentation issue? For > example, I'm not really clear on how exactly to package a Buildr extension > as a gem. I don't think it's very well documented, but I was hoping people would start using it, questions and issues would come piling in, and I can use that to improve the documentation. Documentation, like code, much easier to fix if you know what the bugs are :-) And notice that we're always pushing people to write a plugin and share it in the world, instead of trying to get it included in core. Might be time to walk the walk, split something out of core into a separate plugin and distribute that from Apache. > > > Buildr's great strength is its extensibility. It's incomprehensible how > much more powerful than Maven (and even Ant) this is until you actually are > forced to use it (there, that was a complement :-). I think this > extensibility should be heavily emphasized in the documentation, so that > anyone using Buildr should at least be familiar with extensions and how > they > might be packaged and used. Maybe change the 'extending' section to be more tutorial like and walk people through various scenarios? Assaf > > > Daniel > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Assaf Arkin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Another item of interest is the fact that Maven plugins are dead easy > to > > > use. Just stick the plugin dependency in the POM, and that plugin will > > be > > > emerged and available for use. It would be nice if Buildr had a > central > > > extensions repo of the same ilk. Right now, Buildr extensions (other > > than > > > the "official" ones) are pretty-much ad hoc .rake files that are passed > > > from > > > person-to-person. > > > > > > How about Ruby Gems? > > http://buildr.apache.org/more_stuff.html#using_gems > > > > From the lack of people complaining about it, I guess no body is using > > it. Maybe we need to put more emphasis on it? Or figure out something > > better? > > > > Assaf > > > > > > > > > > > > > Daniel > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > - Download sources (there is a JIRA issue for this) > > > > - Artifact specification by SCM (e.g. depend on trunk/ version of > > > > Wicket, which will cause Buildr/Maven to checkout the artifact and > > > invoke > > > > its POM, installing into local repo of build was successful) > > > > - *any* bizarre Maven plugin > > > > > > > > I honestly don't believe that the last issue is worth worrying about. > > As > > > a > > > > user, I would expect that functionality which was designed > specifically > > > for > > > > Maven will indeed require maven to execute. The Java.net artifact > > > installer > > > > is an example of this. It's doable within Buildr, but it would have > to > > > be > > > > done in a different way using a Buildr-specific extension (as opposed > > to > > > the > > > > current Maven-specific extension/plugin). > > > > > > > > Source downloading and SCM-dependencies are very doable and would > serve > > > to > > > > nicely round-out Buildr as a drop-in Maven replacement. Sources are > > > > particularly relevant for IDEs (content assist). I've seen fewer > > > projects > > > > with SCM dependencies, but they do indeed exist (e.g. the Teachscape > > > > internal application often depends upon the trunk/ version of Wicket > > and > > > > several of its sub-projects). > > > > > > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Alexis Midon <[email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > >> could you be more specific and list these things Buildr does not > > satisfy > > > >> out > > > >> of the box? this could be a good source of inspiration for future > > > >> improvements. > > > >> > > > >> Alexis > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Daniel Spiewak < > [email protected]> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > In principle, I agree that the POM converter should just work. > > > >> There's > > > >> > a > > > >> > > > lot of stuff that Maven does that Buildr doesn't immediately > > > >> satisfy, > > > >> > > What do you mean, do you have an example for this? > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > In general, anything which requires a Maven plugin is > unsatisfiable > > in > > > >> > Buildr out of the box. That's not to say that you can't write a > > > little > > > >> bit > > > >> > of Ruby to handle it for you, but it's not as immediate as in > Maven > > > >> > (obviously, because the plugin was designed for Maven and not > > Buildr). > > > >> For > > > >> > example, things like java.net artifact installation. Also, Maven > > > does > > > >> > things like downloading source (when available) and even checking > > out > > > a > > > >> > project from an SCM, building it and installing into your local > > repo. > > > >> > Again, Buildr is *capable* of all these things, but that doesn't > > mean > > > it > > > >> > fully supports them out of the box. > > > >> > > > > >> > Daniel > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
