Ok, great! Cheers, Martin
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 08:48 -0600, Daniel Spiewak wrote: > No, quite the opposite. Buildr has fantastic auto-magical support for > the major test frameworks. This is especially evident where Scala is > concerned. Specs and ScalaCheck (my tools of choice) "just work". > > Daniel > > On Feb 17, 2009, at 2:39 AM, Martin Grotzke <[email protected] > > wrote: > > > On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 18:32 -0600, Daniel Spiewak wrote: > >> I would strongly emphasize the "scripting language not XML" point, > >> since > >> this is (I think) Buildr's killer feature. Having written a lot of > >> scripty > >> Ant in my day, it is incomparably easier to do the same thing in > >> Buildr. > >> > >> Another point that might be worth mentioning is Buildr's Scala > >> support, > >> which is second to none in my opinion. Maven does support Scala > >> with a > >> plugin (as does Ant), but support for test frameworks and the like is > >> lacking IIRC. > > Are you saying that the support of buildr for test frameworks is > > lacking? > > > > Cheers, > > Martin > > > > > >> > >> Daniel > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Martin Grotzke < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> in our next project I'd like to use buildr for build management. > >>> Now I only have to convince my colleagues, why we should use > >>> buildr and > >>> not maven or ant+ivy. > >>> > >>> I'd say it has the best of both worlds: > >>> - standard build process (like maven) > >>> - conventions for project/directory structure (like maven) > >>> - dependency mgmt using maven repos > >>> - and though it provides the flexibility as ant does > >>> - all ant tasks can be used in buildr > >>> > >>> It has some advanteges over maven and ant: > >>> - buildr is even easier and more flexible as ant since you don't > >>> have to > >>> work with xml to do e.g. an if/then/else - just use ruby (no need to > >>> create tasks/mojos) > >>> - build profiles supporting inheritence (and usage of profile > >>> variables/properties) > >>> - much more compact than maven and ant > >>> - great multi-module / multi-project support: if you have project > >>> A and > >>> B, where B depends on A, then you can just build B, which > >>> automatically triggers a build of A if necessary > >>> - fast (I only compared it to maven) > >>> > >>> To be fair to my colleagues I'd also like to mention the drawback > >>> I see: > >>> - relatively new, so there might be some issues we run into > >>> - not so many examples / documentation available (as it's new), > >>> however, this is compensated by this great mailing list :) > >>> - not so many built-in reporting-plugins available as they are > >>> available > >>> for maven > >>> > >>> Would you add/remove/change some item of this list? > >>> > >>> Thx && cheers, > >>> Martin > >>> > >>> > >>> >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
