cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>
Subject Re: [Heads up] Change to build system in 2.1.x
Date Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:17:31 GMT
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> We really gotta start thinking about our build system and gump integration.
> 
> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> 
>> Unico Hommes wrote:
>>
>>> I've completed the changes to the build system discussed earlier [1]. 
>>> In order to do so I have extended the gump descriptor with additional 
>>> information that allows the build system to locate one or more 
>>> dependency jars per <depend> project within ./lib/optional. See for 
>>> an example the cocoon-block-axis project definition in gump.xml
>>>
>>> Every block now *must* declare all the dependencies it requires to 
>>> compile in gump.xml just in order for it to build properly.
>>>
>>> Since I am not very familiar with gump.xml and I had to add a lot of 
>>> information it is very probable that I made a mistake or two with the 
>>> way local projects are declared.
>>
>>
>> I thought you'll add <libary/> element which would be independent of 
>> <depend/> element and thus avoid any possible conflicts with Gump. But 
>> now I see that you'd added bunch of new <depend/> elements - which are 
>> not currently required by Gump - I don't think we should do that.
>>
>> I'd sleep better if instead of:
>>
>> +    <depend project="db-ojb"/>
>> +    <depend project="antlr"/>
>> +    <depend project="commons-dbcp"/>
>> +    <depend project="commons-pool"/>
>>
>> We'd have:
>>
>> +    <library project="db-ojb"/>
>> +    <library project="antlr"/>
>> +    <library project="commons-dbcp"/>
>> +    <library project="commons-pool"/>
> 
> 
> this will make our descriptor being invalid, but since I control the 
> DTDs we can change that on the other hand.
> 
> but there is something that bothers me: the above really doesn't make 
> any sense. What would be a lot more useful would be something like
> 
>  <depend project="antlr" version="1.0"/>
> 
> or
> 
>  <depend project="antlr" timestamp="20040349"/>
> 
> or
> 
>  <depend project="antlr" tag="V1_0_RELEASE"/>
> 
> then it would be up to gump to give you the version you want (and we 
> might indicate what versions we expose in our gump.xml description).

Two points;

  * Gump is about continuous integration, i.e. always trunk, right?
    And our build does not need version information too. Then,
    who needs it?

  * gump.xml currently does not record dependency on antlr. Do you think
    it should be added? Why? That's what I meant above - I'm not sure
    we should add bunch of dependencies.

Another issue is that dependency project name might not match library name...

Vadim

Mime
View raw message