Skip to main content

Reason 3: Don't build everything all the time

This post is a part of a tiny series I'm doing on why we use Maven, and you should too.

Previous posts:
Huge projects are hard to work with
Many projects that have grown over time will become too large to easily work with. The workspace gets too many classes, the IDE slows down and the build takes too long. If the developers focus on separating the concerns of the classes into packages of functionality, these packages can be organized into modules. As the contract and concern of a module becomes more defined, its rate of change will fall to a lower frequency than the rest of the project.

Once a module's activity has slowed down sufficiently, you can retire it into an external project, build a JAR-file from it and use this ready-built artifact as a classpath element for building and running the software instead. If changes occur later on, you can re-build the JAR-file.

Examples on where this might be appropriate:
  • Low level libraries and utilities, much like Java's own java.util package only changes every other year or so.
  • Contracts or adapters around external services, because integration with 3rd parties require stable data-formats.
What Maven does
Maven eases the work of maintaining such dependencies. As projects "subscribe" to their dependencies, they pull in the latest appropriate JAR-files automatically (snapshots) or by choice of versioned artifact. In an environment with a continuous integration server and a maven repository, the library developers need only commit their changes, and the artifact will be automatically built, deployed, and pulled into the depending project. A good term to describe this setup is Enterprise Maven Infrastructure (see this link for more information on how to actually implement this),

Again, understand that it is better to subscribe to your dependencies than to push them in.
  • Library developers do not have to deploy their artifacts to all clients
  • Clients keep the control of which libraries they use, in which version
  • Easier to maintain transitive dependencies (see my previous post)
  • Getting newer versions is easy
Just to clarify the last point: When you want a new version of a library, you change the version number in the pom.xml. If you want the latest/greatest build (handy for an adjacent project, or a library under heavy development), you make it a snapshot version number, and suck in the latest JAR file from your maven repository on every build.

I could go on on how bad it is to work on a project with a single huge build, but I imagine most developers out there are either struggling with it right now, or have done so some time in the past. There are many reasons why you want to break out modules of your project for architectural and code-design/quality reasons, but in this post I chose just to focus on the basic reasons. I came across one video from SonaType that illustrates this situation very well, so if you didn't get it from reading this post, please take a look at it (although the fancy staging functionality of Nexus is not that important, nor the point of this post).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Git-SVN Mirror without the annoying update-ref

This post is part of  a series on Git and Subversion . To see all the related posts, screencasts and other resources, please  click here .  So no sooner than I had done my git-svn presentation at JavaZone , I got word of a slightly different Git-SVN mirror setup that makes it a bit easier to work with: In short, my old recipe includes an annoying git update-ref step to keep the git-svn remote reference up to date with the central bare git repo. This new recipe avoids this, so we can simply use git svn dcommit   directly. So, longer version, with the details. My original recipe is laid out in five steps: Clone a fresh Git repo from Subversion. This will be our  fetching repo. Set up a  bare repo. Configure pushing from the fetching repo to bare repo In the shoes of a developer, clone the repo Set up an SVN remote in the developer's repo In the new approach, we redefine those last two steps: (See the original post for how to do the fir...

Git Stash Blooper (Could not restore untracked files from stash)

The other day I accidentally did a git stash -a , which means it stashes *everything*, including ignored output files (target, build, classes, etc). Ooooops.. What I meant to do was git stash -u , meaning stash modifications plus untracked new files. Anyhows, I ended up with a big fat stash I couldn't get back out. Each time I tried, I got something like this: .../target/temp/dozer.jar already exists, no checkout .../target/temp/core.jar already exists, no checkout .../target/temp/joda-time.jar already exists, no checkout .../target/foo.war already exists, no checkout Could not restore untracked files from stash No matter how I tried checking out different revisions (like the one where I actually made the stash), or using --force, I got the same error. Now these were one of those "keep cool for a second, there's a git way to fix this"situation. I figured: A stash is basically a commit. If we look at my recent commits using   git log --graph --...

Git-SVN Mirror for multiple branches

This post is part of  a series on Git and Subversion . To see all the related posts, screencasts and other resources, please  click here .  This extends the posts where I explained how to set up a git-svn mirror for a single directory. NOTE: If you just want to use Git against a SVN repo on your own, stop reading ,now, and stick to the git-svn basics. However, if you want a setup where you can share a Git repository with colleagues and friends while still interfacing with Subversion, keep reading. I'll show how to set up a git-svn mirror for a standard Subversion project with trunk , branches and tags . It's a bit like the single directory mirror, but in order to keep all branches in sync, it's a bit more fiddling. The good part is that this setup enables us to cherry-pick commits from one branch to the other. This is slightly smoother than using svn merge . First of all, let's repeat how our Subversion and Git-repositories look physically (roughly the sa...

Git tools for keeping patches on top of moving upstreams

At work, we maintain patches for some pretty large open source repositories that regularly release new versions, forcing us to update our patches to match. So far, we've been using basic Git operations to transplant our modifications from one major version of the upstream to the next. Every time we make such a transplant, we simply squash together the modifications we made in the previous version, and land it as one big commit into the next version. Those who are used to very stringent keeping of Git history may wrinkle their nose at this, but it is a pragmatic choice. Maintaining modifications on top of the rapidly changing upstream is a lot of work, and so far we haven't had the opportunity to figure out a more clever way to do it. Nor have we really suffered any consequences of not having an easy to read history of our modifications - it's a relatively small amount of patches, after all. With a recent boost in team size, we may have that opportunity. Also the need for be...

The Dream of a Bi-directional Git-SVN mirror

This post is part of  a series on Git and Subversion . To see all the related posts, screencasts and other resources, please  click here .  I just got an email asking me how one can set up a bi-directional Git-SVN mirror. It ended up being quite a long answer, so I'll post it here for the benefit of other Git-SVN readers with the same idea. As you may know, I'm a proponent of my own Git-SVN setup . I remember trying to go down the path of a bi-directional repository, but always ran into problems. Here is how it could work: However nice this would be to have, it can be very hard to achieve in practice: Git-svn requires working in a non-bare repository, so pushing to it is by default refused. You can work around this by doing this in the target sync repo: git config receive.denyCurrentBranch ignore You also have to automatically perform a git reset --hard in the syncing repo after each push (by some git hook?), because the work-dir is c...