On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 7:46:43 PM UTC-6, Didier wrote: > > Hey all, > > I've been working on internal build tools where I work, and when looking > into how other build tools like lein do their aot :all compilation, it > seems that they all rely on some brittle namespace finder library, which > searches either the classpath, or a folder of files and tries to identity > all the ns declarations. >
Or you use a hard-coded list (like the Clojure build itself). > From that, they call compile in a loop for every namespace they found. > But, compile just goes ahead and converts the namespace into a resource > path in a very brittle way, just replaces dots for forward slashes, and > dashes by underscores. > This is exactly the algorithm used by the runtime to load every Clojure namespace, so I don't think this particular part is brittle at all. > That's because, `load-one` is actually used to compile, which internally > relies on `load`. Load takes a resource path which needs to be found on the > classpath, not a namespace. > > Now, there are some packages which have source files that have either a > different ns name then their file name > This is pretty rare as it's impossible for the runtime to load it in the normal way when required (it must be explicitly loaded via one of the load methods). > , or they use in-ns and are actually evaluating into an existing namespace > defined in another file. > Slightly more common, but still comparatively rare to the very common case of 1 ns per file. (clojure itself does this a number of times) > Lein actually fails to compile these, because the namespace it finds are > looked up as resources on the classpath by compile and it can't find the > resource, because the resource path does not match the namespace. > > So, for my build tool aot :all compilation, I decided to instead use > `load` with *compile-files* bound to true. And I just convert each source > file in the source dir to a classpath resource path. > > From my perspective, this seems a better way to do it, that is more > reliable, and frankly a lot simpler. But since no one > else did it this way, I'm curious if there is any known issue with this > approach? > Seems like a reasonable alternative to me. > Regards! > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
