Thursday, January 29, 2009

Mysteries of Maven

Maven is a very interesting beast. It seems well-established as the successor to ant as the best practice solution for java builds. It has the cardinal virtue of doing simple things simply. Very large ant build files can collapse to very small maven pom.xml files.

It does simple things simply, and the complexity curve is not far from linear as you try more complex things. However, there's a knee in that curve, and I spent this morning with it firmly planted in a sensitive part of my anatomy.

Consider the maven-antrun-plugin. It's typical of maven that it handles the special capabilities of its competitors by absorption rather than religious argumentation. The antrun plugin allows you to embed ant build tasks in your maven build. If you don't feel like figuring out out to reexpress them in purely maven terms, you can just keep them as-is.

Now, I happened to have a multi-directory structure to move to maven, and there happened to be two places in the structure where antrun seemed the better part of valor. The first one worked fine. The second one did not. After much hair-pulling, I was able to demonstrate to myself that the dependencies that I had listed in the second case were ignored.

"Dependencies?" you ask? Maven plugins, like maven-everything-else, come with a list of dependencies that are added to their classpath. If you want to use ant facilities that aren't in the core of ant, or custom tasks, you have to package them up as maven artifacts and list them as dependencies.

Skipping to the end, there's a bug in core maven that causes all but the first set of dependencies on a plugin to be ignored when multiple projects are evaluated together. Fair enough. Things have bugs. What seemed interesting to me was how wildly opaque this bug turned out to be.

The maven-dependency-plugin didn't reveal much, since it doesn't seem interested in plugin dependencies, only module dependencies. The debug log (-X) didn't add anything to the situation. Like many debug logs, it is a compendium of things that seemed interesting to a developer chasing a particular issue at a particular time. I found myself wondering, "what would fail-soft consist of in this case? Could there be some other medium-level debug output more adapted to people debugging their POMs than to people debugging the inside of maven itself?"

Debugging is a understudied problem.

And there turn out to be two open bug reports on this against the plugin, even though it isn't the plugin's fault.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Another Voyage Through Eclipse

I spend a significant fraction of my working time staring at Eclipse. I fear that I'm a lifer. Even though rumors reach my ears that Netbeans has become usable, I just can't motivate myself to consider an alternative.

Some years back, I did some development in Eclipse. I was able to convince a client of ours that the best way to set up a linguistic workbench was Eclipse. We built a set of plugins. We submitted a raft of bug reports. Even a few patches. It worked. Sadly, the client decided that they preferred .NET, so off they went. Given the problems we had getting Arabic and Hebrew text to work right in Eclipse, and my recent discoveries, I'm not entirely sure that they were crazy.

All that is background. In the last week, I set out to build a simple tool for linguistic annotation. That is, display some text, and give the user very convenient, keyboard-based, tools to mark words.

I found http://www.vogella.de/articles/RichClientPlatform/article.html, which looked to be a good solution to the fact that the books can never keep up with the ongoing redesign.

And then the fun began.

The fundamental thing I wanted in my program was an editor. Historically, Eclipse editors have tended to be more entangled with the full IDE than other kinds of components. This problem turned out not to be solved in 3.4.

The turorial explains how to use the most recent Eclipse mechanisms for setting up the File menu and all of that. Unfortunately, the tutorial does not mention that as soon as you add an editor, the simple prescription fails.

To add an editor to an RCP application, you add an extension under org.eclipse.ui.editor. And, the next thing you know, you have a file menu, whether you want one or not. Before you can add the File Open that you want, you have to get rid of the old one. All this is complicated by the transition from 'actions' to commands. Under the 'new administration', things are supposed to be organized around commands, but there remains, not surprisingly, a mountain of code, examples, and documentation from the old universe.

Thankfully, a bit-o-googling revealed a recipe for this.

Next? Make Arabic look right.

When I last worked in this environment, the top of my lap was a Windows box. (I've since spent some time chained to a copy of Ubuntu and moved on to a Macbook Pro.) There were some problems with Arabic; the SWT people hadn't thought all that much about an application running with an overall English locale that needed to do a clean job of displaying some RTL text. However, we got reasonable results on Windows.

Mac OS X? Uh, oh. SWT, it seems, has some fundamental assumptions about how systems will support RTL languages. Even though RTL languages (in general) work fine on Mac OS, there is an impedance mismatch with SWT. Net result: there is no simple way to set up a StyledText component to display Arabic or Hebrew correctly. Luckily for me, I don't absolutely need this tool to look beautiful on MacO OS.

Analytics