Here is my use-case:
Assume that I have multi-module maven project in which I make a change only in one of its sub-modules. After the change has been made, I want to release only a new version of this sub-module and not releasing the whole project.
Is there a way to do that in maven?
What maven recommends in this case as a best practice?
Is it a good practice to have different sub-module versions?
First as you asked. The idea of a multi module build is to have the same version of all modules which might mean releasing modules which haven't been changed.
BUT:
If you start to have different versions in child modules you will loose the idea and the support which leads to manual work....
Furthermore if you release different versions of the childs you have to asure that different versions of childs work correctly together which means in other words you have to do testing on different version combinations of that which would increase the testing effort dramatically.
if you use only a single version of the modules a customer can chose simply one version and can be sure the components working correctly together...I assume you have some unit/integration tests within your build...
Related
I use Weld on a Java SE application, and I was wondering if generate the Jandex index at build with a plugin will improve the startup.
For now, I didn't notice a performance improvement.
But i found 2 plugins for generating the index:
https://github.com/smallrye/jandex
and
https://github.com/wildfly/jandex-maven-plugin
Any idea witch one to use?
Thanks!
For now, I didn't notice a performance improvement.
This would only be noticeable for large deployments. The reasoning behind it is that having a Jandex index makes it possible to skip the discovery phase via reflection and instead allow Weld to browse a pre-built index.
That being said, there is no harm in using Jandex even on smaller deployments, it's just that the difference won't really be noticeable.
Any idea which one to use?
Short answer is - as of Jul 2022, if you want the maven plugin variant, use the WildFly one. If you want core artifact, use the one with org.jboss.jandex artifact group ID.
Longer answer is - the SmallRye one is the original repo, recently migrated from https://github.com/wildfly/jandex to https://github.com/smallrye/jandex.
It holds the sources of what used to be org.jboss.jandex artifact group ID (and is now io.smallrye). It also has maven plugin module but there is no public release yet and it will be a major version bump as well. Therefore, going forward, there will be an artifact groud ID change but otherwise it will retain the same artifact ID and it will all be hosted in one repo.
I have a large solution, with many projects and many files, and only one build configuration, Release. I am using TFS, and the complete rebuild takes like 2 hours.
Is it possible to distribute the build across several agents, so that they will compile different projects, or, even better, different files? Something like dictcc? I can distribute the build on up to 10+ different machines, but the build only works on one.
For now, my impression is that agents can only have specialized jobs, like build, run tests, etc, but not split and distribute only one build.
I already tried optimizing the build, but still the project is big and can benefit on parallel build
You can but but must roll-up your sleeves: there is no built-in template that helps, but Jim explains how to make one.
Do not forget that you can also leverage multi-CPU/Core as explained in Building Multiple Projects in Parallel with MSBuild.
Your best option would be to break your solution down into defunct components that can be built separately.
If you seperate each bit and build and test before publishing as Nuget you can distribute easily across build servers and even only build the bits that have changed.
This process will also work in the new build system coming in 2015 that does not use XAML.
The XCode documentation on the concepts of Targets and Projects are helpful, but still I am not certain on the best practices to use in my situation.
I have an existing codebase (used for Windows as well as iOS) in a single SVN repository, which has just been refactored from one single test application into a central library and an application. The idea is more applications will use this central library over time.
An XCode project maps one set of source files to one or more targets, so I could have a single project for my whole codebase and one target for the library and one for each app. However each app will obviously have its own code, so it seems a bit clunky to throw all the source into a single project this way.
Alternatively I could have a workspace with multiple projects, each having a single target. This is much more how I have things set up for the Windows build, where a Visual Studio solution corresponds to the Xcode workspace, and a VC++ project would map neatly against how XCode projects are organised.
But are there 'normal' / expected ways to do things in this kind of situation, some unofficial standards I should try to follow so other developers don't get confused?
Targets nowadays are used to build dependencies and separate builds within a project. You'll see it being used mainly for unit testing. Occasionally, you might have different binaries available to different processors or operating systems, but this is a rarity in today's app store world.
Generally, you'd have one project for each executable. This allows it to be worked on independently and compiled separately without interfering with each other.
You can include projects within projects, which allows you to work on them independently and set up dependencies for them. You can set up a project to build a sub-project and deposit it's executable in a location for your project to link to.
I would say for your situation, make a library project with executable and testing targets. Then include that project in other projects and you can link to or move the files to your other project's location. Here's the gist of how to do it.
I know you don't mention them, but workspaces were basically added to allow you to have multiple projects open in a single window. You can have all your test applications and reference code available without them compiling in the background as well. I find it super handy.
The key difference is that each target is in exactly one project, but one project can be a part of many workspaces. This lets you have projects Lib, AppA, and AppB, and then WorkspaceA = [AppA, Lib] and WorkspaceB = [AppB, Lib], so that developers working on AppA don't have to load stuff related to AppB. As a general recommendation it's a good idea to create projects for things that you might want to share independently.
When I share code between one or more projects (be it Xcode or another IDE), I typically compile the shared parts into a binary and then link it to the code specific projects.
In your setup, something like an Xcode project just to compile a dylib from shared C++ files, and then a main Xcode project that links with this dylib.
I've been tasked with setting up a new Team Foundation/Build server at my company, with which we'll be starting a new project. Nobody here currently has experience with TFS, so I'm learning all of this on my own. Everything is working so far; The server's been set up, the Repository and Team Project has been created, the Build Server has been created, and I've created a simple hello world application to verify the source control and Continuous Integration builds (on the build server) run properly.
However, I'm having a problem setting up the automatic versioning. I've installed the TfsVersioning project, and it's working fine; I'm able to define a format for my assembly versions. I haven't yet decided what format I'll use; probably something like Major.Minor.Changeset.Revision (I'm aware of the potential problem regarding using the changeset number in the assembly version, so I may decide to switch to Major.Minor.Julian.Revision before we begin development).
The problem:
I don't want assemblies to have new file versions if their source code has NOT changed since the last build. With a continuous Integration build this isn't a problem, as the build server will only grab the source files that have changed, causing an incremental build which produces only updated modules; the existing unchanged modules won't be built, so their version will remain unchanged.
If I set up a nightly build, I'll want to clean the workspace and perform a Build-All. However, this means that ALL assemblies will have new version (assuming the Assembly File Version includes the build number).
A solution?
This has prompted me to consider using the latest changeset number in the Assembly File Version. This way, if nothing has been committed between two successive Build-Alls, the versions won't be incremented. However, this would mean that a change and commit to a single file would force a version increment on ALL assemblies.
I'm looking for one of two things:
A way to only increment Assembly Version Numbers if their source/dependencies have changed since the last build. Successive Build-Alls should not cause changes in version numbers.
OR
A way for testers and non-developers to be able to tell version W.X.Y.Z and version W.X.Y.Z+1 of assembly 'Foo' are identical, even though they have differing file versions.
I've probably read about 20 articles on the subject, and nobody (except this guy) seem to address the issue. If what I'm asking for isn't common practice in the Team Foundation ALM, how do I address the second bullet point above?
Thanks for your time!
This is something I did in the past. The solution has two critical points:
You must use an incremental build, i.e. Clean Workspace = None
The change to AssemblyInfo.cs must be computed at each project
This latter is the most complex and I will just draft the solution here.
In the custom MSBuild properties use CustomAfterMicrosoftCommonTargets to inject an hook in normal Visual Studio compile
/property:CustomAfterMicrosoftCommonTargets=custom.proj
Also forward a value for the version
/property:BuildNumber=1.2.3.4
In custom.proj redefine the target BeforeCompile to something similar
<Target Name="BeforeCompile"
Inputs="$(MSBuildAllProjects);
#(Compile);
#(_CoreCompileResourceInputs);
$(ApplicationIcon);
$(AssemblyOriginatorKeyFile);
#(ReferencePath);
#(CompiledLicenseFile);
#(EmbeddedDocumentation);
$(Win32Resource);
$(Win32Manifest);
#(CustomAdditionalCompileInputs)"
Outputs="#(DocFileItem);
#(IntermediateAssembly);
#(_DebugSymbolsIntermediatePath);
$(NonExistentFile);
#(CustomAdditionalCompileOutputs)"
Condition="'$(BuildNumber)'!=''">
<Message Text="*TRACE* BuildNumber: $(BuildNumber)"/>
<MyTasksThatReplaceAssemblyVersion
BuildNumber="$(BuildNumber)"
File="$(MSBuildProjectDirectory)\Properties\AssemblyInfo.cs"/>
</Target>
You need to have a task for replacing the AssemblyFileVersion in the AssemblyInfo.cs source. MSBuild Extension Pack has an AssemblyInfo task for this purpose.
I posted the full details at my blog here, here and here.
I am considering switching a Maven project that I manage to Apache-Ant/Ivy. I need more control over the build process and am getting very frustrated with Maven. Please no comments about how great Maven is. My question is about Ivy.
I would like to set up a "standard" Ant build template that can later be used for other projects with minimal changes.
I will set up a central "enterprise" repository where we can place third-party libraries that are not available in the public Maven repositories (e.g. commercial libraries, Sun libraries, proprietary libraries, etc.). This enterprise repository will be available on our local LAN, but may not be available from outside the office.
Each developer will have a private repository in ~/.ivy/repository. I would like the Ant build to automatically update this private repository with changed versions of libraries from the enterprise repository.
In ~/.ivy/ant, I plan on placing "standard" modules for including in the individual project build.xml files, using the include task in Ant 1.8. These modules will provide things like Scala and Clojure compilation targets with different versions for different Scala and Clojure versions (e.g.: scala-compile-2.9.1.xml, clojure-compile-1.3.xml, etc.) The build modules will be available in the enterprise repository and should be updated automatically in the private repositories if they change.
Each project will follow a standard Maven directory structure: ${project}/src/main/java, ${project}/target/classes, etc.
In the past, I tried using Ivy but the Ant build files got to be very large (> 500 lines for the template build file) and hard to manage/edit. I am hoping that by putting standard targets in their own build modules in the ~/.ivy/ant directory, I can avoid that code bloat.
Can this be done? Am I way off base? The only documentation I can find on Ivy is at the Apache web site (http://ant.apache.org/ivy). Is there any other documentation available, including books?
Rather sensible idea about dividing template build file into includable helper files. Personally, now i'm switchin' a really large project from ant (no dependency managment at all - only copying files from ftp) to ant/ivy solution. So i've done this way - i have a file with milestones targets - i.e ready-to-compile, compiled, ready-to-archiving, archived - so on. I think u got the idea. I've configured dependencies of all this targets ( dependencies in terms of ant, do't get me wrong). In that way - compiled depends on ready-to-compile, ready-to-compilede depends on initialized - smth like this. This targets don't have body - they are for including in every build-file of every module of your multi-module project. The sole purpose of this targets for maintaining the STATE of build, because of this import stuff things become rather tricky and it's hard time to know what target was overriden, and when this target would be run. But with this file i can easily change state of vy build on every sensible milestone. I want in one module to compile help files with exteran exe. No problem - in this project i just do this - ready-to-archiving depends on the target for compiling help. And as this milestones targets are included - i can override only some of them - all others would presere the desired way of building project.
Another part of my strategy - mixins build files - for every specific area. So i have a file for ivy. There i put initializing, resolving, publishing and so on. When i want to use ivy - i just include this file and manage depdendencies through my milestones targets. If the build is typical - i only include this file and have a convention-over-configuration functionality. All out of the box. How?? Just combining with other mixins. Mixins may include other mixins to depend on them. So each mixin is a reusable part of my build strategy. The stuff from OOP - single-concerned unit. In your case it's scala mixin with targets specific for scala stuff.
Then i have delegate.xml that delegates child projects common build activities. I have dist, all, test and whatever u want for multimodule project. The build order is evaluated with ant-ivy task buildlist.
There also some other files - but this are the strategically basic files that helped me to have a reusable and maintanable build with this BIG and VERY Conservative project. So, if u are interested about details, don't be shy and contact me. I will be very pleased to help you, because ivy docs are really comlicated and incomplete.
EDIT: About books - Ant in Action may help you, i took several ideas from this book, and i really highly recommend it everyone to read. There u can find ivy stuff, also. And about ivy docs - sorry, it's all that is available. But when i was in trouble with this cumbersome ivy+ant - i found several interesting articles on private blogs. So ... that may fill the gap some way.