Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
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?

Alexander Kriegisch

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
> 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