RE: Combining Builders, Tasks and Publishers?

Hi,
The preferred way of configuring CCNet should be through the web app
going forward.  In that light, the format of the config file seems
largely irrelevant.  

I think efforts should be concentrated on building a UI which is easy to
use and allows full configuration of the underlying server (or server
farm).  Ease of use is what will distinguish CCNet from other CI servers
and allow it to become the de facto standard for CI in the future.  

However, in the spirit of ease of use, the config files should be
strictly versioned and CCNet should support reading old config files and
converting them to new file formats automatically as part of any CCNet
upgrade process.

Regards,
Donal

-----Original Message-----
From: ccnet-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ccnet-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike
Roberts
Sent: 02 November 2004 01:45
To: ccnet-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Ccnet-devel] Combining Builders, Tasks and Publishers?

Hi,

This is for after 0.7 final is released, but I've been thinking about
something.

Instead of having 'builders', 'tasks' and 'publishers' as separate
concepts, why not combine them? E.g. Instead of:

<build type="nant">
    ....
</build>
<tasks>
    <merge>
        <files>
 
<file>c:\fromcvs\myrepo\myproject\build\test\unit-test-results.xml</file
>
        </files>
    </merge>
</tasks>
<publishers>
  <xmllogger />
</publishers>

Have:

<tasks>
    <build>
        <nant .... />
        <merge ..../>
    </build>
    <postbuild>
         <xmllogger />
    </postbuild>
</tasks>

The difference between 'build' and 'postbuild' being that a 'postbuild'
task can't fail the build.

Benefits:
- Simpler configuration
- Multiple builders possible for 1 project
- Can run tasks before project (e.g. simple execs to do SCM checkout for
those SCMs that don't have autoGetSource)
- Possibility to use current 'tasks' as postbuild tasks
- Possibility to use current 'publishers' as tasks
- Simpler implementation (1 interface instead of 3)

Drawbacks:
- May encourage complicated workflow that should be delegated to a build
script
- Breaking change to configuration

I think this has been discussed before but I'd like to put it forward as
a change for 0.8. I'm sure Owen at least will have an opinion since it
means dumping the event stuff on publishers! In my mind, we can add
eventing later, and we may have an event concept that runs a task.

Mike

--
mike roberts | http://mikeroberts.thoughtworks.net/ |
http://www.thoughtworks.com/


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE
LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click
_______________________________________________
Ccnet-devel mailing list
Ccnet-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ccnet-devel



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE
LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idU88&alloc_id065&op=click