D'oh, my memory's that bad, that I even forgot that I already answered - or I just need to get another cup of coffee!! :)
Sorry for spamming, Martin On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 10:28 +0100, Martin Grotzke wrote: > 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
