It can be very useful to have an example when setting up your first headless build. It occurs to me that there is a growing number of relatively simple examples: the pde.build junit tests.
The org.eclipse.pde.build.tests project can be checked out of cvs from dev.eclipse.org/cvsroot/eclipse/org.eclipse.pde.build.tests. The main test suite is PDEBuildTestSuite.
If you run the tests with the vm argument pde.build.noCleanup=true then the tests will run without deleting any files and you can then go take a look at the setup for each test.
Not every test is a full build, but many are. Generally the tests consist of generating some features and plugins, then generating the build.properties and allElements.xml configuration files and then running the build.
Of particular interest would be the generation of the build.properties file. This is done by loading the template file and then setting just a handful of the properties. See BuildConfiguration.getBuilderProperties(IFolder). This should give a good idea of what properties you need to change for your build.
*Edit 1/28/08 : The "pde.build.noCleanup" argument was added on 1/23/08, you must use a build N20080124-0010 or newer. The first I-Build containing these changes will be I20080129.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
On Building Cycles
One of the enhancements I am considering for pde.build in 3.4 is partial handling of cycles.
The latest idea is allowing a cycle that contains at least one binary bundle. The presence of the binary bundle could be enough to break the cycle and allow us to compile the remaining bundles.
Consider the following:
Where we have a cycle between B, C, and D. If C is binary and does not need to be compiled, we may be able to compile the remaining bundles in the order A, D, B, E.
However, there are cases where this would not work. It could be that allowing this wouldn't actually help and would simply be giving people rope to hang themselves with.
If you have an opinion on this, please go comment on the bug and give the patches there a try.
The latest idea is allowing a cycle that contains at least one binary bundle. The presence of the binary bundle could be enough to break the cycle and allow us to compile the remaining bundles.
Consider the following:
A <- B <- C <- D <- E
----------^
Where we have a cycle between B, C, and D. If C is binary and does not need to be compiled, we may be able to compile the remaining bundles in the order A, D, B, E.
However, there are cases where this would not work. It could be that allowing this wouldn't actually help and would simply be giving people rope to hang themselves with.
If you have an opinion on this, please go comment on the bug and give the patches there a try.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)