ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Loughran <ste...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Ant 1.7 beta?
Date Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:45:43 GMT
Kev Jackson wrote:
>>
>> I'm trying to set up a conf call with the junit team, to see how best 
>> to go with the junit4 support. I am currently thinking
>> -<junit> stays 3.8.x only.
>> -we add a new junit antlib for junit4 support, design it to work on 
>> 1.6.5 and 1.7
>> -maybe hand off ownership of the antlib to the junit team, if they 
>> want to gain that tight coupling and take on the costs.
>>
> That sounds like a good plan - it would be much better if the JUnit 
> people can support their own JUnit antlib
> 
>>
>> WL itself hurts. I know people hate jboss for its worst-in-class 
>> classloader, but it doesnt make such a mess of your machine. Mind you, 
>> I've never tried WebSphere.
> 
> Ah yes WL is one of my least favourite pieces of software - the 'hacked 
> up not quite Ant' that it sticks on your path (before your current 
> ANT_HOME), the 'not eclipse' IDE (WL Workshop) - great let's strip out 
> the good features of eclipse (refactoring support, CVS/SVN support) and 
> leave you with a bloated IDE that only works with WL, the jrocket vm - 
> which doesn't like code compiled with the Sun JDK, but interestingly has 
> no problems with code compiled with Jikes.  A whole host of wizzy gui 
> configurators/installers, but the shell scripts are placed in different 
> location depending on linux/windows.  And a hot-deploy mode that doesn't 
> work (unless you use the web application / server admin tool to deploy) 
> - which defeats the point of the 'special' bundled Ant, or the supplied 
> shell scripts.


1.if you install it on a vmware image (Solaris?) it wont make a mess of 
your dev box.

2. cargo from codehaus.org should do deployment too.

Its on my todo list to do full deployment from smartfrog to the various 
app servers, even though we tend to use jetty in-process for our day to 
day work. Lightweight, easily configured, self-contained.

> 
> I've used a very old version of WebSphere (3.5) and it sucked, given the 
> time WL 8+ has had since 2000 (when I used that bug-ridden steaming pile 
> of <expletive deleted>), and coming from a completely different company, 
> I hoped for something much better - but no it sucked too, but in a 
> different way.  I'm not sure, but I suspect that all J2EE appservers 
> suck, I just haven't had the misfortune to try them all (yet).

Classic app servers were what?
-Web front end
-EJB hosting
-JMS message queuing
-maybe JMX management
-guis to make it easier for people to get into a non-reproducible 
configuration

With hibernate you get good persistence without the app server, leaving 
only the web front end, management and the queue to deal with. That's a 
lot lighter wait. Oh, yes, there is that SOAP stack, but my own Alpine 
prototype does that in about 20 classes.

-steve


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org


Mime
View raw message