On 5/4/06, Eric Pugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I used to be a big advocate of CC. I've had a contribution committed
to the main code base in almost everyone of the last couple point
releases. My big beef with CC breaks down to two things:
1) Speed
2) Web interface
I find that with long builds that output a lot of data, the CC method
of using XSL transformations to pull data out is too painful.
It works, but it's slow.
I generally agree though:
- XSL transformations are cached. so the transformation cost happens once.
- we could always change the webapp to preformat the pages before one
gets to see the pages.
- you can also configure the app to minimize the information to store
in the logs and keep the raw logs on the side.
I also dislike the lack of a web interface for
managing the application. Sure, there is a JMX interface, but it is
clunky to use. And I can't add/remove builds from the web
interface. I have to log onto my remote build server and tweak
another xml file.
1- there's a web interface in the works
2- you can use the ccconfig project to remotely edit the config file
The thing that bothers me most with CC is that you have to make the
initial checkout by hand.
In contrast, Continuum is all web configurable. It's fast because it
doesn't parse the log file, it just looks for the result of the
build. Unless you need some of the advanced stuff the CC provides,
like some of the notifiers or SCM support, Continuum just works better.
I guess that in the future, CC will become easier to use and Continuum
will have more high end features.
J
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
