[POLL] Do you rely on gwt:compile's staleness check?

82 views
Skip to first unread message

Thomas Broyer

unread,
Nov 28, 2014, 6:07:11 AM11/28/14
to codehaus-mojo-gwt-...@googlegroups.com
Hi all,

Do you rely a lot on gwt:compile's staleness check to skip compilation when it thinks the output is up-to-date?

In light of https://github.com/gwt-maven-plugin/gwt-maven-plugin/issues/108, I'm wondering if we shouldn't just remove the check and let people explicitly skip the compilation when needed.
The alternative would be to have distinct output directories for gwt:run/gwt:run-codeserver and gwt:compile, but that would equally break a lot of people.

Juan Pablo Gardella

unread,
Nov 28, 2014, 7:04:55 AM11/28/14
to codehaus-mojo-gwt-...@googlegroups.com
I do agree, remove the check.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Codehaus Mojo gwt-maven-plugin Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to codehaus-mojo-gwt-maven-...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to codehaus-mojo-gwt-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/codehaus-mojo-gwt-maven-plugin-users.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Sean Flanigan

unread,
Nov 28, 2014, 7:14:38 AM11/28/14
to codehaus-mojo-gwt-...@googlegroups.com
I do rely on the staleness check.  If I want a deployable build, I make it a clean build.

Separating the output directories does seem like the cleanest solution, if things are going to be breaking anyway...


--

Danilo Reinert

unread,
Nov 28, 2014, 8:37:50 AM11/28/14
to codehaus-mojo-gwt-...@googlegroups.com
Same as @Sean, "If I want a deployable build, I make it a clean build".

Em sexta-feira, 28 de novembro de 2014 09h14min38s UTC-3, Sean Flanigan escreveu:
I do rely on the staleness check.  If I want a deployable build, I make it a clean build.

Separating the output directories does seem like the cleanest solution, if things are going to be breaking anyway...

On 28 November 2014 at 21:07, Thomas Broyer <t.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,

Do you rely a lot on gwt:compile's staleness check to skip compilation when it thinks the output is up-to-date?

In light of https://github.com/gwt-maven-plugin/gwt-maven-plugin/issues/108, I'm wondering if we shouldn't just remove the check and let people explicitly skip the compilation when needed.
The alternative would be to have distinct output directories for gwt:run/gwt:run-codeserver and gwt:compile, but that would equally break a lot of people.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Codehaus Mojo gwt-maven-plugin Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to codehaus-mojo-gwt-maven-plugin-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to codehaus-mojo-gwt-maven-plugin...@googlegroups.com.

jieryn

unread,
Nov 28, 2014, 10:28:47 AM11/28/14
to odehaus Mojo gwt-maven-plugin Users
We do rely on the staleness check. It saves anywhere from 6-12 minutes
on various projects. GWT compilation is already the bottleneck for our
continuous build process, even with compilation skipping (due to
m-war-p overlay processing). To see that price paid each and every
build... oh my.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Codehaus Mojo gwt-maven-plugin Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to codehaus-mojo-gwt-maven-...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to
> codehaus-mojo-gwt-...@googlegroups.com.

Kay Pac

unread,
Nov 29, 2014, 3:45:22 PM11/29/14
to codehaus-mojo-gwt-...@googlegroups.com
I do rely a lot on it to avoid unneeded recompilation, but I just as often (or maybe more often) force recompilation when it isn't necessary. I would definitely miss it, and I'm not sure if removing it would be the solution I would pick to issue 108. I'm not steeped in the details of any of this, however, so it remains up to you and the rest of the community.
 
Thanks for your service!
 
Kay

phine...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 11, 2014, 2:11:55 PM12/11/14
to codehaus-mojo-gwt-...@googlegroups.com
Ideally, I'd like the staleness check to still exist, but be reliable.

But given that I saw the same issue on GAE referenced by this post, I understand the argument for removing it, particularly if getting the staleness check right is NP-hard.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages