What we're pretty successfully doing right now at my current work is that we use Maven for dependency management (and Eclipse integration), but Ant for scripting, building, etc. We just dumped Ivy because it's hard to configure correctly and has inferior IDE integration.
Check out ant-maven-tasks; it's pretty useful. /Janne On Jun 27, 2012, at 12:33 , Florian Holeczek wrote: > Hi Juan Pablo and Janne, > > improving our build management is something I've had in mind for a long time > already. Just having a look at the output of some Ant visualization tool is > demonstrating that there is much room for improvement :-) > I remember a discussion with Janne on this. He wasn't really in favour of > Maven, and, after I've personally seen some not that huge project suffering > from Maven's complexity, I tend to share his opinion. > IMO, JSPWiki has definitely grown too big for Ant, but it's ways too small > for Maven. I think Ivy might be a small partial improvement regarding > dependency management, but the most promising candidate to me is Gradle [1]. > Heard of it already? WDYT? > > Regards > Florian > > [1] http://www.gradle.org/ > > > ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- > Von: "Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez" <[email protected]> > An: [email protected] > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012 10:49:37 > Betreff: Re: code coverage and sonar integration > > hmmm.., then I'd rather go adding Ivy support to manage all dependencies > (or even to a maven-based build). Will begin on this as soon as I can. Thx > for the info on this :-) > > > regards, > jp > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Janne Jalkanen > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> Nope. >> >> But what you can do is to make an ant task which downloads Cobertura and >> the relevant JARs when you run "ant coverage-tests" or whatever. >> >> /Janne >> >> On 27 Jun 2012, at 01:11, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote: >> >>> Hi again, >>> >>> I was curious and have added the needed jars and the related ant task to >>> see how JSPWiki is performing in terms of test coverage. I was about to >>> commit the changes, but I'm not very sure if we can commit the Cobertura >>> jar, as it is not clear to me if their license is AL-compatible or not >> (by >>> the way, if anybody is curious, I've uploaded the reports to [1]). >>> >>> Cobertura ant tasks are AL-licensed [2], but cobertura.jar contains both >>> ant-tasks and Cobertura itself, which is GPL. Is it OK to commit this jar >>> in tests/lib? Regarding asm-3.0.jar and asm-tree-3.0.jar, they seem OK >> [3]. >>> >>> Also, following up with the coverage reports, I've also made the >> appropiate >>> task to let Sonar gather some statistics from JSPWiki. The point is, >> Sonar >>> is LGPL'ed, which means we can't add the Sonar ant tasks to the project, >>> so, does it make sense to commit these build.xml changes? As I have them >>> now, they assume that the Sonar ant tasks are placed inside $ANT_HOME/lib >>> >>> >>> regards, >>> juan pablo >>> >>> >>> [1]: http://people.apache.org/~juanpablo/coverage_2.9.0-incubating-3 >>> [2]: http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/license.html >>> [3]: http://asm.ow2.org/license.html >> >>
