Mavenize the build process - Phase 1: building the native code via Maven #582
Conversation
lgoldstein
force-pushed
the
maven-phase1-native
branch
from
eaebd4e
to
1c06e26
Compare
|
The component can be easily tested by: cd native |
|
Could you please point at a good example of an "ideal" maven build for reference? |
|
I don't know what "ideal" means, but IMO the current ANT script used to build the project is quite complex. There is a lot of "code" that Maven does better and in a more concise way. In addition to this, ultimately we want to publish the artifacts as Maven ones - therefore, using Maven to build the project seems more natural. Furthermore, the dependencies that we need (e.g., junit) are easier to manage via Maven instead of having to keep them checked in Git. As far as a Maven reference - see Apache Mina SSHD (which is also maintained by me...) |
|
I vote for maven, however I don't think we should merge maven changes until they replace at last a big part of the build process AND simplify it. I mean I wouldn't put to on master until we rely on it to build. |
|
As I have previously stated, I believe Maven-izing the whole project all at once is a big undertaking involving a lot (!) of changes, so doing it all at once seems very lengthy and cumbersome. This is especially true since due to the duration it may take until a stable Maven build is likely to be very long (I cannot devote 100% of my time to it...) and keeping up with the frequent changes in the master is going to be very difficult. That is why I prefer doing it in (very) small steps that we can test separately - like Lego building blockx - where at the end we will tie together all these small blocks into the big construction. Meanwhile, we keep using the ANT build until we are reasonably sure that Maven can take over. That is why these changes should reside in the master even though they are not currently being used, so that they evolve alongside the other changes. |
| @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ | |||
| <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> | |||
| <!-- Super POM included by all other sub-POM(s)--> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
minor: Might want to remove this comment. I'm guessing it was copy/paste from parent pom.
lgoldstein
force-pushed
the
maven-phase1-native
branch
from
1c06e26
to
32baafd
Compare
|
Fixed all indicated remarks and re-pushed |
|
|
||
| <dependencyManagement> | ||
| <dependencies> | ||
| <dependency> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think these ant dependencies are needed because they are not used as dependencies. Further down, they are declared as deps of a plugin in <plugin-mgt> section, which should suffice.
| <dependency> | ||
| <groupId>org.mockito</groupId> | ||
| <artifactId>mockito-all</artifactId> | ||
| <version>1.10.19</version> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
mockito same as junit: delete until actually needed, or add <scope>test</scope>
lgoldstein
force-pushed
the
maven-phase1-native
branch
from
32baafd
to
88ca8f6
Compare
|
I agree with you that the POM should not contain definitions that we don't need, so I have trimmed down some plugins and dependencies that we are not likely to need when we switch to the full Maven build. However, I prefer leaving in the definitions of the ones we will need down the road (e.g., surefire, gmaven, junit, mockito) since there are quite a few of them and they are somewhat inter-related, so it would be easy to miss adding one of them or configure them correctly. |
|
If the poms only contain the minimum definitions needed, and if new maven build features are added incrementally via feature branches, then I think you can add definitions as needed - and avoid brittle builds. |
|
You make a good point - I'll see how I can trim this further - it will take some time though since I am going through a bit of an upheaval and cannot devote to it the time I would have liked... |
| </developers> | ||
|
|
||
| <build> | ||
| <defaultGoal>install</defaultGoal> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would not recommend a defaultGoal of "install". I've seen maven projects get into trouble when accidentally requiring an "install" phase, when the "package" phase should be sufficient. I suggest either remove the defaultGoal, or change it to "package".
PS: I'm working on a PR from your branch with a bunch of the suggested changes
|
I pushed a new branch (based on your branch in lgoldstein) to my own fork with the "shrunken parent pom" changes. Here's the commit with the diff: bhamail@dfc729c My git/github foo is lacking, and I couldn't figure out how to create a new PR based on your PR. |
|
Looks fine, although for the maven-antrun-plugin I strongly recommend adding at least the following dependencies in order to ensure that we control the exact ANT version that is being used <dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.ant</groupId>
<artifactId>ant</artifactId>
<version>${ant.version}</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.ant</groupId>
<artifactId>ant-launcher</artifactId>
<version>${ant.version}</version>
</dependency> |
|
Re: maven-antrun-plugin -> ant version. If we need to use the latest version of ant (though I don't think we do), just adding the first dependency (org.apache.ant:ant) should suffice - because org.apache.ant:ant declares a dependency on the same version of org.apache.ant:ant-launcher. If we don't need to force a newer ant version than the default ant version used by maven-antrun-plugin, then I would not add the additional config now. We can easily add such config later if needed. maven-antrun-plugin -> 1.8 declares a dependency on ant -> 1.9.4 Have you experienced a problem building with that ant version? |
|
I haven't experienced any specific problem with 1.9.4, but why not use latest 1.9.6 - after all, there is a reason it was released (bug fixes, new features, etc...). I have been using 1.9.6 for quite a while and I am very satisfied with its stability and performance. As far as relying on the dependency declared by the antrun plugin - better to have the used ANT version stated explicitly in the POM, so that if we upgrade the antrun plugin version we do not drag in some unknown dependency for some new or un-tested ANY version. |
|
Using the latest ANT is fine by me. In that case, we should drop the 'org.apache.ant:ant-launcher' dependency. |
|
Just keep the ant one as it will bring in the launcher dependency with the same version. Sounds good enough - just go ahead and do it. |
|
I pushed the explicit ant dep, and a few other changes to my branch: https://github.com/bhamail/jna/tree/maven-phase1-native-dan. I'll try to resolve the conflicts with master next (I will mess with my branch to be safe). PS: After this get's merged to master, I'd like to run the pom.xml files through "tidy:pom". |
Mavenize the build process - Phase 1: building the native code via Maven Fixes # #582
|
Fixed by PR #597 |
…ive-access#573)" (java-native-access#582) Motivation: The used github action does not work anymore Modifications: This reverts commit 776c601. Result: Build pass again
My goal is to eventually execute the build process using only Maven (with some help from the antrun plugin). However, Maven-izing the whole project at once is a complex and daunting task. This why, I would like to tackle it in phases, where each phase will add another Maven "conversion" of the full build process until we can achieve a full build and release cycle using only Maven. For the time being, ANT will continue to be the build framework until this goal is reached, and (as you will note) the Maven build artifacts reside under the target sub-folder, whereas the ANT ones reside under the build one. This way, we can keep the "parallel" builds without interfering with one another until we are ready to switch to the Maven one.