Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25792
| Path | csiph.com!eeepc.pasdenom.info!news.pasdenom.info!news.dougwise.org!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | Markus Gessner <nospam@nospam.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Dependency resolution in Java builds |
| References | <87oc6mi2nl.fsf@web.de> <b074deac-dae8-4afe-895c-496eaa3fb5eb@x4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> |
| Date | Wed, 09 Feb 2011 08:06:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87ei7hk7ox.fsf@web.de> (permalink) |
| User-Agent | Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:MFLKId+g4gK6djjc1pjJLybCk7g= |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
| Lines | 60 |
| Organization | Arcor |
| NNTP-Posting-Date | 09 Feb 2011 08:06:36 CET |
| NNTP-Posting-Host | c6f044e2.newsspool4.arcor-online.net |
| X-Trace | DXC=OUKEDi4^7?2gP]QSEBQ^d44IUK<Cl32<14Fo<]lROoR18kF<OcfhCO;\fKm1KYEXo0NV846hVml58Q>B4BFjnAC3YVL6_nk3I<4W<WgaTBMTG: |
| X-Complaints-To | usenet-abuse@arcor.de |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:25792 |
Show key headers only | View raw
Hello! First of all, please excuse my typos of yesterday, it was a bit late here in Europe. On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 17:28:50 -0800 (PST), Joshua Maurice wrote: > In short, all commonly available build systems suck. It's just a > difference of degree. That includes the idiomatic solution of > "Recursive Make Considered Harmful" with gnu make and gcc -M on c++ > code. Ex: Try removing a cpp file, and see if your link output gets > rebuilt. See what happens when you add a new header file which hides > another header file on an include search path. This may happen, but in my everyday work I never came across such situations. We even had a medley of metacompilers (moc, proc ...), and the handling of the additional dependencies introduced by them also always worked. You only had to explicitly add source files to some *.pro-files, the makefiles were generated from, but that I happily submitted to, everything else just working. To sum it up -- this setup, devised a lot of years ago and never changed, just worked, I almost never noticed it, which unobtrusiveness IMHO is the best one can say about a tool. It was just "issue a command and sit back". > So, the modern commonly available Java build systems handle even less > of these dependencies than the common "Recursive Make Considered > Harmful" handles. I've been working on my actually incrementally > correct build system on the side which does /correct/ incremental > Java, but don't expect anything soon. (It also relies on Sun JVM's > compiler interface, which isn't Java standard but Sun standard, so > don't expect it to work on other platforms which don't have the Sun > JVM. However, the output bytecode is portable and can run everywhere.) This is a very laudable undertaking, but the fact of its necessity says a lot about the common regard of this complex, as you note further below. > I think you'll just have to make do with full clean builds. That's > also the advice I've heard from basically all Java people to whom I've > talked on this subject. At least now I won't do too much digging, although in this thread markspace wrote about a different experience, which he made with Ant (not Maven, I am stuck with, alas). > Builds is one of the most under-appreciated aspects of programming. Having just begun working with Java, I of course cannot really appreciate its merits, but it seems, that it would be impossible to implement the needs of a lot of business oriented applications without its standards (Java EE), and some frameworks do have a certain charme (e.g., JAXB and Hibernate). Nevertheless, the build environment I experience gives me the overall impression of a car, nicely fitted with teak panels, a GPS system and a minibar, but which has to be cranked every mile or so. Says a somewhat frustrated mind, who prefers the tramway :-) Markus
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Dependency resolution in Java builds Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-02-08 17:28 -0800
Re: Dependency resolution in Java builds Michal Kleczek <kleku75@gmail.com> - 2011-02-10 14:17 +0000
Re: Dependency resolution in Java builds Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-10 19:08 -0500
Re: Dependency resolution in Java builds Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-02-09 14:59 -0800
Re: Dependency resolution in Java builds Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-09 08:02 -0500
Re: Dependency resolution in Java builds Markus Gessner <nospam@nospam.com> - 2011-02-09 08:06 +0100
Re: Dependency resolution in Java builds Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-02-09 23:56 +0000
Re: Dependency resolution in Java builds Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-10 08:09 -0500
Re: Dependency resolution in Java builds Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-08 22:14 -0500
Re: Dependency resolution in Java builds Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-02-09 23:28 +0000
csiph-web