有人在巴克明斯特的现实世界中经历过吗?

发布于 2024-07-13 01:38:14 字数 144 浏览 5 评论 0原文

我目前正在评估 ivy、maven 和 Buckminster,以简化我们的构建过程。 从概念上看,巴克明斯特似乎是最先进的,但也具有相当的复杂性。

我在网上找不到那么多关于巴克明斯特的第一手经验,因此我向 Stackoverflow 社区提出问题。

I'm currently evaluating ivy, maven and buckminster to ease our build process. Conceptually buckminster seems the most advanced, but also to have quite a complexity.

I can't find so many first hand experiences to buckminster on the web, therefore my question to the Stackoverflow community.

如果你对这篇内容有疑问,欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论,获取更多帮助,或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。

扫码二维码加入Web技术交流群

发布评论

需要 登录 才能够评论, 你可以免费 注册 一个本站的账号。

评论(2

神回复 2024-07-20 01:38:14

我们在七月份的构建过程中采用了巴克明斯特。

我们的设置是使用由 CruiseControl 服务器运行的 Ant。

我们选择它是因为我们有多个项目位于多个存储库中。 我们有多种 RCP 产品使用这些项目的不同组合。

  • 管理每个产品的签出(和构建)必须使用我们已经编写的元数据(清单文件、产品文件)。 构建和开发元数据不同步太容易了。
  • 手动构建捆绑包和生成产品仍然不容易。
  • 新启动者需要快速启动并运行。 两天以上的时间来设置开发环境是不可接受的。

总的来说,我发现它是一个非常强大的工具,但文档却很差。 有很多新概念,并且因为它是一个可以插入工具的框架,所以这些概念的一些名称可能非常抽象。

然而,巴克明斯特在解决上述三个问题方面绝对擅长

其他补充:

  • 它可以引导自身,例如:它可以在给定最小核心的情况下自行检查
  • 它似乎正在积极开发中
  • 通过邮件列表提供的支持很简洁,但通常很有帮助。
  • 它有一个基本的脚本语言。 非常初级。

缺点(除了缺乏文档之外):

  • 它仍然不成熟 - 你会发现偶尔的错误,以及一些应该存在的功能,但没有。
  • 我无法弄清楚如何使测试包工作
  • 测试 OSGi 产品仍然很重要,并且不容易实现无头。

总的来说,我想说,虽然需要一段时间才能入睡,但做得非常好。 我无法将它与 Ivy 或 Maven 进行比较,尽管 Spring 对 OSGi 的采用可能会在开发人员中对 Maven 产生重要影响。

我已经回答了有关巴克明斯特的几个问题,为您在开始时提供帮助。

We adopted buckminster for our build process in July.

Our set up was to use Ant being run by a CruiseControl server.

We chose it as we have multiple projects living in multiple repositories. We have several RCP products that use different combinations of these projects.

  • Managing the checkout (and build) for each of these products had to be run off the metadata which we were writing already (manifest files, product files). It was just too easy to get the build and dev metadata out of synch.
  • Building bundles and generating a product still is not easy to do by hand.
  • New starters need to be up and running quickly. Two+ days to set up a dev environment is not acceptable.

Overall, I found that it is a very powerful tool with poor documentation. There are lots of new concepts, and because it is a framework to plug tools into, some of those names for these concepts can be quite abstract.

However, buckminster absolutely excelled at solving the three problems detailed above.

Other additions:

  • It can bootstrap itself, as in: it can check itself out, given a minimal core
  • It seems to be under active development
  • Support via the mailing list is terse, but generally helpful.
  • It has a rudimentary scripting language. Very rudimentary.

On the downside (apart from the lack of docs):

  • it is still not mature - you find the occasional bugs, and some features which just should be there, but aren't.
  • I could not work out how to make the test bundle work
  • Testing OSGi products is still non-trivial and not easily made headless.

Overall, I would say that it took a while to bed in, but does an excellent job. I cannot compare it with Ivy or Maven, though Spring's adoption of OSGi may give critical mass in developer mindshare to Maven.

I have answered a few questions concerning buckminster, for help when you start.

故事还在继续 2024-07-20 01:38:14

我们使用通过 Jenkins 运行的 Buckminster 来构建一个 KNIME (eclipse) 更新站点,其中包含托管在多个存储库中的多个插件/功能。 最初的决定是因为它是KNIME 社区贡献的构建方式。 有一个学习曲线,但是一旦运行起来。 我们的许多初始设置过程都是基于 开发插件 - 与 Jenkins 持续集成的说明

We use buckminster running via Jenkins to build a KNIME (eclipse) update site with multiple plugins / features hosted in multiple repositories. Initial decision was because that it how the KNIME community contributions are built. There is a learning curve, but once it is running. A lot of our initial setup process was based on the instructions at Developing plugins - continuous integration with Jenkins

~没有更多了~
我们使用 Cookies 和其他技术来定制您的体验包括您的登录状态等。通过阅读我们的 隐私政策 了解更多相关信息。 单击 接受 或继续使用网站,即表示您同意使用 Cookies 和您的相关数据。
原文