|Re: [aspectj-users] There is an AspectJ maven build configuration|
Great news, Andy, thank you so much. This weekend or the next I guess I will take a look. One question, just in case: Would PRs against the GitHub repo be okay? Regards -- Alexander Kriegisch https://scrum-master.de Andrew Clement schrieb am 12.02.2019 06:29: > It is alive. AspectJ, well overdue, now has as rudimentary maven > build. It builds on the few systems I’ve tried it on although some > of the tests seem to be a bit flaky on windows (I’ve not run the > tests on windows for a long time so I don’t think it is due to the > maven process, it just never used to be this easy to run them on a > different OS). If anyone wants to help polish it, please do, I’m not > a maven guru. There are some of the jar dependencies that need > converting from local jar references to real dependencies from a > repository but I haven’t had a chance to work out the exact version > numbers. You can ‘mvn install’ and it will build > aspectjrt/aspectjweaver/aspectjtools and then you can consume them > from your local repo (although the poms need a bit of work). There is > an installer project that builds the installer distribution we also > make available. I’ve imported it into eclipse using m2e, I haven’t > tried it with IntelliJ - I’d be interested to know if that works. > > If nothing else this may make it easier for folks to consume snapshot > builds that include workarounds or early fixes as they can more easily > build/install it locally now. > > If anyone wants to try it out, please do, raise bugs, contribute fixes > :) > > There are extra benefits I snuck in: > -- I deleted the projects ending in ‘5’ (created when Java5 was > separate to Java 1.4) and merged them into the non 5 variants. > -- bcel-builder is no longer a ’special project’ you had to > build separately. It is just a regular sub-module > -- If you do want to run the tests in eclipse, I added a few lines > explanation in the new README at > https://github.com/eclipse/org.aspectj > > I guess the true test of this will be when I try to use it to release > 1.9.3 but as it produces the same artifacts, I should be able to use > the same release process there.
Back to the top