I'd like to use #Grape in my groovy program but my program consists of several files. The examples on the Groovy Grape page all seem to assume that your script will consist of one file. How can I do this? Should I just add it to one of the files and expect that the imports will work from the others? If so, then is it common to place all the #Grape calls in one file with no other code? Do I need to add the Grape call to all files that will import the package? Do I need to download the JAR and create a Gradle file, which I was getting away without at this point?
the grape engine and the #grab annotation were created as part of core groovy with single file scripts in mind, to allow a chunk of text to easily become a fully functional program.
for larger applications, gradle is an awesome build tool with lots of useful features.
but yes, you can manage all the application dependencies just with grape.
whether you annotate every file or a single one does not matter, just make sure the #grab annotated file is read before you try to use the external class.
annotating the main class is probably better as you will easily lose track of library versions if you have the annotations scattered.
and yes, you should consider gradle for any application with more than a dozen files or anything you might want to reuse elsewhere as a library.
In my opinion, it depends how your program is to be run...
If your program is to be run as a collection of standalone scripts, then I'd probably stick the #Grab required for each script at the top of each of them.
If your program is more of a standard style program with a single point of entry, then I'd go for using a build tool like Gradle (as you say), as you get a lot of easy wins by using it.
Firstly, it makes it easy to define your dependencies (and build a single large jar containing all of them)
Secondly, Gradle makes it really easy to start writing tests, include code coverage plugins, or useful tools like codenarc to suggest possible fixes or improvements to your code. These all become invaluable not only for improving your code (or knowing your code works), but also when refactoring your code, you know you've not broken anything that used to work.
Related
I have a directory with multiple source files of indeterminate name. The only thing I know is the file extension. I want to take each source file, and build a single target from each. The method I'm currently using is to determine the name of each source using a for loop:
targets = []
for file in listdir('.'):
if file.endswith('.xdm'):
targets += env.m4(source=file)
The advantage of doing it progrmatically like this is that the SConscript doesn't have to be maintained by the developers as they add new sources. The problem is that the targets are no longer cleaned because of something to do with dependencies that I don't entirely understand.
So my question is is there a more appropriate way to do this, using in-built SCons functionality, without relying on more traditional flow control, or should I just ensure that each of my sources is determined and list them individually in the SConscript?
Instead of fiddling with listdir I would simply use the Glob() method, as provided by SCons itself:
for file in Glob("*.xdm"):
env.m4(source=file)
This (like the example from your question) is a perfectly fine approach, since it uses the fact that SConscripts are actually Python scripts. The Glob() approach has the advantage of also finding *.xdm files that don't exist on the harddrive yet, but may get created as part of the build process later.
I wonder about the problems that you mentioned, regarding cleaning of the targets. The Q&A linked in your question above seems unrelated to me. If you experience actual "cleaning" problems with one of the approaches above, please post a separate question together with the full verbatim input and output. If it should turn out that this doesn't work out-of-the-box, I'd consider it to be a bug.
From a performance/maintenance point of view, is it better to write my custom modules with netsuite all as one big JS, or multiple segmented script files.
If you compare it with a server side javascript language, say - Node.js the most popular, every module is written into separate file.
I generally take the approach of Object oriented javascript and put each class in a separate file which helps to organise the code.
One of the approach you can take is in development keep separate files and finally merge all files using js minifier tool like Google closure compiler when you deploy your code for production usage which can give you best of both worlds, if you are really bothered about every nano/mini seconds of performance.
If you see SuiteScript 2.0 architecture, it encourages module architecture which is easier to manage as load only those modules that you need, and it is easier to maintain multiple code files i.e. one per module considering future enhancements, bug fixes and code reuse.
Performance can never be judge by the line count of your module. We generally maintain modules for maintaining the readability and simplicity of the code. It is a good practice to put all generic functionalities in to an Utility script and use it as a library across all the modules. Again it depends on your code logic and programming style. So if you want to create multiple segments of your js file for more readability I dont think its a bad idea.
Let's say I have a project where I want to use Lo-Dash and jQuery, but I don't need all of the features.
Sure, both these projects have build tools so I can compile exactly the versions I need to save valuable bandwidth and parsing time, but I think it's quite uncomfortable and ugly to install both of them locally, generate my versions and then check them it into my repository.
Much rather I'd like to integrate their grunt process into my own and create custom builds on the go, which would be much more maintainable.
The Lo-Dash team offers this functionality with a dedicated cli and even wraps it with a grunt task. That's very nice indeed, but I want a generic solution for this problem, as it shouldn't be necessary to have every package author replicate this.
I tried to achieve this somehow with grunt-shell hackery, but as far as I know it's not possible to devDependencies more than one level deep, which makes it impossible even more ugly to execute the required grunt tasks.
So what's your take on this, or should I just move this over to the 0.5.0 discussion of grunt?
What you ask assumes that the package has:
A dependency on Grunt to build a distribution; most popular libraries have this, but some of the less common ones may still use shell scripts or the npm run command for general minification/compression.
Some way of generating a custom build in the first place with a dedicated tool like Modernizr or Lo-Dash has.
You could perhaps substitute number 2 with a generic one that parses both your source code and the library code and uses code coverage to eliminate unnecessary functions from the library. This is already being developed (see goldmine), however I can't make any claims about how good that is because I haven't used it.
Also, I'm not sure how that would work in a AMD context where there are a lot of interconnected dependencies; ideally you'd be able to run the r.js optimiser and get an almond build for production, and then filter that for unnecessary functions (most likely Istanbul, would then have to make sure that the filtered script passed all your unit/integration tests). Not sure how that would end up looking but it'd be pretty cool if that could happen. :-)
However, there is a task especially for running Grunt tasks from 'sub-gruntfiles' that you might like to have a look at: grunt-subgrunt.
I need to obfuscate my source code as best as possible so I decided to use uglifyjs2.. Now I have the project structure that has nested directories, how can I run it through uglifyjs2 to do the whole project instead of giving it all the input files?
I wouldn't mind if it minified the whole project into a single file or something
I've done something very similar to this in a project I worked on. You have two options:
Leave the files in their directory structure.
This is by far the easier option, but provides a much lower level of obfuscation since someone interested enough in your code basically has a copy of the logical organization of files.
An attacker can simply pretty-print all the files and rename the obfuscated variable names in each file until they have an understanding of what is going on.
To do this, use fs.readdir and fs.stat to recursively go through folders, read in every .js file and output the mangled code.
Compile everything into a single JS file.
This is much more difficult for you to implement, but does make life harder on an attacker since they no longer have the benefit of your project's organization.
Your main problem is reconciling your require calls with files that no longer exist (since everything is now in the same file).
I did this by using Uglify to perform static analysis of my source code by analyzing the AST for calls to require. I then loaded the source code of the required file and repeated.
Once all code was loaded, I replaced the require calls with calls to a custom function, wrapped each file's source code in a function that emulates how node's module system works, and then mangled everything and compiled it into a single file.
My custom require function does most of what node's require does except that rather than searching the disk for a module, it searches the wrapper functions.
Unfortunately, I can't really share any code for #2 since it was part of a proprietary project, but the gist is:
Parse the source text into an AST using UglifyJS.parse.
Use the TreeWalker to visit every node of the AST and check if
node instanceof UglifyJS.AST_Call && node.start.value == 'require'
As I have just completed a huge pure Nodejs project in 80+ files I had the same problem as OP. I needed at least a minimal protection for my hard work, but it seems this very basic need had not been covered by the NPMjs OS community. Add salt to injury the JXCore package encryption system was cracked last week in a few hours so back to obfuscation...
So I created the complete solution, that handles file merging, uglifying. You have the option of leaving out specified files/folders as well from merging. These files are then copied to the new output location of the merged file and references to them are rewritten auto.
NPMjs link of node-uglifier
Github repo of of node-uglifier
PS: I would be glad if people would contribute to make it even better. This is a war between thieves and hard working coders like yourself. Lets join our forces, increase the pain of reverse engineering!
This isn't supported natively by uglifyjs2.
Consider using webpack to package up your entire app into a single minified .js file, excluding node_modules:
http://jlongster.com/Backend-Apps-with-Webpack--Part-I
I had the same need - for which I created node-optimize and grunt-node-optimize.
https://www.npmjs.com/package/grunt-node-optimize
As the title says, I want to have a build tool that quite much stays out of my way.
I would rather want to specify rules, rather than steps in the build process. I wan to say that I want a binary file with a name placed in the root directory of my project, .o files should go in an obj/tmp dir and the source is in the Source-directory.
I do NOT want to tell it that it is this'n'that file as I keep adding new files rather quickly, it should just scan the source directory (and its subdirectories) looking for Ragel (.rl) and C++ code (.cxx) and doing what's necessary to make all into an executable.
I have looked into many tools, like auto{make,conf,header} (Did not really like that I placed the files it wanted in a subdir of project root, eclipse did not like that either), CMake (Seems like I have to add all source-files myself, and is quite much a variation of autotools in my eyes). I have also read about ant, maven (I am also allergic against XML, it's a good format to serialize data for applications, not so much for humans. I would prefer YAML) and others on WikiPedia. And I have seen tools which seems good but which require to be set up as a webserver which is kinda overkill.
Also, I really need the ability to be able to work offline without internet connection!.
Right now it seems like the best option is to make a little script that finds all .cxx files and write an Unity.cxx and builds that one with G++, which probably is quite fast but to much an ugly hack, I guess.
Bonus Points:
Fast builds
Ability to type build test-1 or something and it will build and directly run test-1
Multi-core builds (i.e. faster builds)
Does really not interrupt my train of thought
CMake is great. It's free, cross-platform, and reasonably well documented. It supports "out of source builds", meaning none of the build files are placed in the source directory. That makes source control a bit easier. It can be set up to find new files (globbing). Fast?...It generates make files...after that it's up to your compiler. Multicore...again, more a function of the compiler. I've used CMake on Windows, Linux, and Mac...it just works.
Another that I haven't tried but have read about and plan to test is premake... http://industriousone.com/sample-script
cake from CoffeeScript is quite good, and I'm writing a similar tool using Lua myself.
CMake and premake Ain't build/maketools, they are build/make-descriptor generators; which may fit a large number of projects that ain't changing too much. But not for project where rapid prototyping is a key.
Right now, I'm doing a project where the browser updates when you hit the save-button in your text editor; You do not need to go to the browser and hit F5 (Which would cause a small delay while the browser load in everything again, and you would most likely loose the state of the page, like say that you have an menu open, and wish to tweak the look of the menu. You would be forced to navigate there again in your RIA).