Re: [Rails-devel] Build.xml

[Freek D. <sf_...@ma...>]

brett lentz wrote:

> So, perhaps lib needs to be divided into build dependencies, and
> run-time dependencies?

I would suggest that.

> [CombineTiles.pl] should be in with the other utils, or maybe we need a new
> location to store non-java scripts.

I like Erik's suggestion for a "tools" directory. It could contain both
the perl tile-build scripts as well as the jarbuilder library. Both are
build scripts. Perhaps tools/lib and tools/tiles or tools/perl.

We can decide later what to with run-time scripts such as the Ruby mail
scripts from Chris' fellow players should also go in here.


> Do we really need the jarbundler source copied into our tree?   I'd
> prefer to just include the .jar, if we're not planning on patching the
> source.

I agree. My working copy contains the jar, license and doc only.

It could be argues to completely leave it out of the repository, but I
argue that it is useful for automated builds (perhaps one day we'll see
nightly builds...)


> Eclipse uses the classes directory to access a compiled version of
> every .java file, so you can run the app from within Eclipse.

My apologies for these (surely mundane) questions. I'm a rookie in
Eclipse (It keeps gives me a Way-Too-Many-Features-Overflow-Errors).

So if I understand correctly, Eclipse does not run the rails-1.1.2.jar
file, but runs the class files in the classes directory instead. And for
that to work, it needs all the files in the classes directory.

Out of curiousity: Does Eclipse actually use the build.xml at all? Or
does it do it's own thing and is build.xml an attempt to replicate this
behaviour?


> Feel free to fix one or both of these issues. :-)

I will do so, but still try to understand what exactly is going on
beyond the scenes.


>> Last -- what would be the preferred output folder for the mac
>> application? I know choose MacRails-1.1.2. Do you have better suggestions?
> 
> We should test the jar on non-Mac platforms, and compare the UI.  If
> it doesn't change the user experience for other OSes, I see no reason
> to have a separate package. We can just bundle it in with the main
> jar.

For clarity: the jar file is exactly the same. The only reason for a
separate directory is not to polute the current rails-<version> folder
with .app and .exe files.

What the jarbuilder does is create the following file structure:

rails-mac-<version>/
   Rails.app  (which includes the lib and jar files)
   README
   LICENSE

Similarly, a Windows builder will create something like:

rails-win-<version>/
   Rails.exe  (which includes the lib and jar files)
   README
   LICENSE

And a platform independent looks like:

rails-<version>/
   lib/
   rails-<version>.jar
   README
   LICENSE

In all cases, the .jar is the same.

Thinking about it, the *build* is the same: what is different is the
*packaging*. Some Makefiles distinguish between "make" and "make dist".
  Perhaps splitting this functionality is a bit overkill for now.

Regards,
Freek