incubator-nmaven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Shane Isbell" <shane.isb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: platform independence for the build
Date Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:48:36 GMT
I've been crawling around the toolchain implementation and have a rough idea
of how this is going to work.

First, we have a dead simple rule that chooses microsoft for windows and
mono for all other platforms. A developer can override this within the
pom.xml under the compiler plugin configuration in case they need to compile
with mono on windows. This will require that the user adds the appropriate
path to the classpath. If they don't, funny behavior could occur. For
example, on windows, if a developer places mono on the classpath but
specifies microsoft as the vendor, then it will compiler under mono 1.1.
Initially, we will only support .NET 2.0 (unless they hit the situation
outlined above). We can release NMaven against the 2.0.x branch.

Second, when we are ready, we use the toolchain under shared. This
requires implementing some classes for .NET support, this is a minor amount
of effort. It may, however, require some changes to the toolchain API. When
the toolchain releases under maven 2.0.9+, we will require that version for
NMaven. This switch means that the developer no longer specifies the vendor
(and framework versions) under the compiler plugin config, but rather adds
the toolchain plugin to the pom.xml and uses the toolchains plugin
configuration to specify the vendor information. This will allow us to
configure the exact path of the executables. At that point, we can expand
out support for multiple .NET versions, vendor versions and so on.

In many ways, the toolchain is very similar to the nmaven-settings in 0.14.
The toolchains, however, will be standardized across Maven, so there will
not be a divergence; toolchains supports the notion of version ranges; it
only needs to be initialized once, resulting in a performance improvement;
and finally, we won't be specifying a state machine to infer the best match
based on the platform, this will all be in the hands of the developer.

Since the toolchain can handle passing in framework locations, developers
won't be modifying their paths. For IT, we would likely specify different
toolchains.xml files to use for testing under multiple platforms.

One other feature that I am interested in is a .NET app that reads the
window's registry and displays toolchain options to the user. In this
way, we can have a GUI based application for discovering platform
capabilities and for configuring the toolchain.

Regards,
Shane

On Dec 17, 2007 1:19 PM, Shane Isbell <shane.isbell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Brett,
>
> I'm going to start looking into the current toolchain work and see what we
> can leverage. If the CompilerContext implementation can access the tool
> chain, the context will be able to pass the path location of various
> compilers off to the ClassCompiler implementation instances during
> construction.
>
> Regards,
> Shane
>
>
> On Dec 16, 2007 10:59 PM, Shane Isbell <shane.isbell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >  On Dec 16, 2007 9:38 PM, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the thorough explanation.
> > >
> > > Pardon my density, but I'm missing something fundamental - how will
> > > NMaven work in any of the cases below at runtime, without a settings
> > > file and capability matching, given that you are saying the IT test
> > > might need some special handling to specify the implementation?
> >
> >
> > I understand where your confusion comes from. If it works under x, y, z
> > configuration for builds, it should just require configuring x, y, z for
> > testing. I'm not saying that this can't be done by creating scripts that
> > modify systems path and environmental variables, what I am saying that there
> > may be an easier way that requires configuring components that we can plug
> > in to the framework. Both of these are just concepts with no
> > grounding because right now it doesn't work for the runtime, except in the
> > simplest of cases: Microsoft/Mono .NET 2.0.  It's just tough to say at
> > this point how we want to handle IT tests under multiple platforms until we
> > get the first cut at the implementation.
> >
> > Shane
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > - Brett
> > >
> > > On 17/12/2007, at 9:58 AM, Shane Isbell wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Brett,
> > > >
> > > > The trunk integration tests are set up the same way as Maven and my
> > > > intention for the first release was just to test out the latest
> > > > version of
> > > > Mono using .NET 2.0, as well as Microsoft 2.0. This would involve
> > > just
> > > > changing the environment on a limited number of configurations. Just
> > > > to
> > > > note, a simple changing out of the path will not completely work on
> > > > all
> > > > configurations, as Mono contains csc.exe (for .NET 1.1) and gmcs.exe
> > > > (for
> > > > .NET 2.0).  Microsoft, on the other hand, has the versions in
> > > > different
> > > > directories, which makes swapping out the paths easier. But you have
> > >
> > > > to keep
> > > > in mind that for Microsoft .NET 3.0, the framework uses the same
> > > > compiler as
> > > > .NET 2.0, but a different one for 1.1 and 3.5. Configurations can
> > > > get a
> > > > little funky.
> > > >
> > > > If we were only dealing with Mono or only Microsoft, I would be much
> > > > more
> > > > confident that would could pull off doing the IT setup exactly the
> > > > same as
> > > > Maven for all the needed configurations. I'm hoping that this is the
> > >
> > > > case.
> > > > However, it's a little premature for me to have a good idea of how
> > > the
> > > > integration tests will work under multiple platforms now that we
> > > > don't have
> > > > capability matching.  Right now we have options of creating scripts
> > > > setting
> > > > up the paths, with modifications for each permutation of
> > > > installations.
> > > > Another approach is something like the nmaven-settings file, which
> > > > contains
> > > > the parameters and lets some component handle the paths. One thing
> > > > that I do
> > > > like about a settings approach is that, on Windows, we can
> > > > autogenerate the
> > > > settings file by inspecting the registry, meaning we only test what
> > > > the
> > > > platform is capable of testing. We'll need to open up that to design
> > >
> > > > and
> > > > comments when we get to that point.
> > > >
> > > > If anyone on the list wants to take up on how IT testing should be
> > > > done, go
> > > > for it. The issue: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/NMAVEN-14 has
> > > > been out
> > > > there a long time.
> > > >
> > > > As part of the IT testing, we will need to create a .NET assembly
> > > > (or find a
> > > > way to do it through Java) that handles the inspection of meta-data
> > > > within
> > > > the project assembly. This is the only way to verify things like
> > > > resource
> > > > generation, signing of assemblies, proper dependencies/references,
> > > > and so
> > > > on. We may even be able to write this under the verifier.
> > > >
> > > > We haven't yet addressed within the compiler interface
> > > implementation
> > > > the specifying of framework version for Mono, so I have even less of
> > > > an idea
> > > > of exactly how it will work with the IT tests.
> > > >
> > > > Shane
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 16, 2007 1:32 PM, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> On 17/12/2007, at 8:19 AM, Shane Isbell wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I agree on all the points. Can you post a bug about what is
> > > >>> breaking?
> > > >>
> > > >> Will do.
> > > >>
> > > >>> This was the original motivation for the nmaven-settings file.
It
> > > >>> allowed
> > > >>> changing the platform configuration to replace vendors, vendor
> > > >>> versions and
> > > >>> framework versions. I think that the general nmaven-settings file
> > > >>> concept is
> > > >>> the right approach for integration testing, it should just be
used
> > > >>> for
> > > >>> integration tests and should be non-obstrusive. This will likely
> > > >>> require
> > > >>> adding some component extensions that will allow modifying of
the
> > > >>> working
> > > >>> directory of executables. This approach would avoid having to
> > > bring
> > > >>> in all
> > > >>> the capability matching components to support it.
> > > >>
> > > >> At this stage I would be happy with the integration tests just
> > > >> running
> > > >> under whatever the current execution environment is, like the
> > > normal
> > > >> NMaven execution would do. This is basically what the Maven ones do
> > > >> for now, based on the version of Maven in the path. You then
> > > switched
> > > >> your execution environment and re-run the test suite. Some tests
> > > are
> > > >> excluded on environments they are not suitable for. The integration
> > > >> test tools that are used for Maven should be able to be re-used in
> > > >> NMaven.
> > > >>
> > > >> Beyond that, I would just use whatever the toolchain capabilities
> > > are
> > > >> in Maven at the time to go towards the next step rather than adding
> > > >> anything specific for it in either NMaven or the integration tests.
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Is that in line with what you were thinking?
> > > >>
> > > >> - Brett
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message