Related
95% of my time I program ASP.NET (MVC) web sites.
Should I care about MSBuild?
We use MSBuild with CruiseControl.Net to manage the builds of most of our big ASP.NET projects. For every commit of one member of the team, a build is launched. It helps us detect
quickely incompatibilities before moving a feature to "staging" or "production".
I think it is really usefull when working with a team on the same ASP.NET project or if you are working alone on a big project.
That depends on your development environment.
If you have other folks that do deployment of your systems, and they take care of the build and deployment environment, then MSBuild probably won't be necessary for your work.
On the other hand, if you need to configure the build script to understand special situations that your code comes up with, then you will definitely need to understand MSBuild scripts.
Even for a one-man shop, it's a useful tool to know, especially if you are configuring a continuous integration server like Hudson.
No. Until you have to.
Its not absolutely necessary to know MS Build, but it is useful to know.
It might not be needed for all kind of projects, but it is extremely useful when you are working on a huge code base with automated custom build solution/ nightly build/developer builds so on and so forth.
It's unlikely, unless you choose to use it, or you start to make use of Team Foundation Server's Team Build.
Your development processes need to get to a certain complexity before automated builds really deliver their true value and/or if you find need for automatic deployment (including database changes if applicable).
The coming Visual Studio 2010 is going to make it far easier to use, but for now it retains a fairly steep learning curve which you can avoid by using alternatives, or commercial products (e.g. Visual Build Pro, Final Builder etc).
The nice thing is that it is part of the .Net framework, so it's already available as long as you have the framework installed (which it probably is).
So, in short, not really. It's something very useful and powerful though, setting up deployments using MSBuild can be very, very useful.
What should a developer know about MsBuild?
Every developer should know it exists and it's basic capabilities. If know it exists you won't duplicate its features and will know what it can do for you, when you need it.
Minimum:
As an exercise, build your project through the command line: msbuild myproj.sln
Know the role of continuous integration
A little more than minimum:
Hack your csproj (or vbproj) with a message task, so it outputs something during clean.
All done. When you need to know more, you'll figure it out.
I am going to develop my first application (4 members team).I am not aware of source control tool ( Visual
source safe,Tortoise SVN).
My .NET version is 3.5. What is the best source control tool ?
Is CruiseControl a source control tool ?
Definitely avoid Visual Source Safe.
Subversion is probably a safe choice, but you will have to elaborate about your situation (E.g. how big is your team?) to get more specific advice.
Another no vote for Visual Source Safe here.
Might be an idea to get familiar with subversion as - just as others mentioned - it's widely adopted, so might be useful in the future and simply works..oh and it's free too!
TortoiseSVN integrates into the windows explorer and is both easy to use and well documented so I would give it a try.
If it's a small project of yours and you don't want to worry about hosting, I would recommend signing up for a free account at something like beanstalk, to keep it safe, without any hassle.
But if it's your first ever project, it might just give you too many additional things to learn about, so you might want to put it aside for a while.
Try GIT, it's much lighter weight than svn
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gitextensions/
you can use a local repository for just checking in your own work (to keep a history, or to keep a working version before changing everything) Or you can connect to a central repository for enterprise source control.
The company where I work used to use the SVN, Tortoise, Ankh stack but we're using Git now. Plus I use it at home on my on play projects.
(quated part is no more important since you edited your post about team size)
If you are doing some small project on
your own, maybe you shouldn't use code
versioning at all because you probably
don't need it. Code versioning helps
you with central code storage,
multi-person development code merging
(several people working on the same
file and then commit changes) and code
branching to name the most important
ones.
If I were you, and I would be the only
person developing something simple, I
wouldn't use it, because it would also
be a bit of a time-overkill.
But otherwise source control doesn't address technology like .Net framework version. Code control only stores files (with history) and is able to merge text files. Written in whatever language possible.
If you are part of a team I'd suggest using Subversion + TortoiseSVN + AnkhSVN
And No, CruiseControl is not a code versioning system. It's a continuous integration system.
If you have a pure Windows environment then VisualSVN server is a Windows version of SVN server and installs easily and cleanly. You can setup security using Windows usernames and passwords, or SVN usernames and passwords.
You can then use Tortoise to provide integration in Explorer and VisualSVN to provide Visual Studio integration (there's a small cost for VisualSVN) or you could try AnkhSVN if all you want is VS integration and don't want to spend any money. Personally I prefer VisualSVN's integration.
Running a GIT server under Windows is, umm, frankly a pain in the ass, and not a route I'd recommend for beginners. VS integration is also fraught with pain.
As with everyone else I'd say avoid SourceSafe like the plague.
CruiseControl is not a source control system, it's an automated build server. It monitors source control servers looking for changes, then checks everything out, compiles it and runs it through your unit tests, so people know if they've broken the build. Once you have source control up and running it's the next big step towards a better build environment.
Before we start talking about source control, I would like you to consider your actual need for it, if this is to be your first .NET application. Is this your actual first attempt of writing some .NET 3.5 code? If so, I doubt that you need to worry about source control just yet. I would say it's not just a little bit overkill for the first learning projects.
On the other hand, if this is to be your first application that you'll actually sell to someone, it's a completely different matter.
I currently use VisualSVN, an add-in to Visual Studio that lets you do check-in, check-out etc from within the environment. Along with it, I use the free SVN repository service at XP-Dev. It works well for me =)
Your choice of a versioning system does not have to do anything with the .NET version you are using.
I'd vote for Subversion / Tortoise SVN. It's rock-solid, has lots of handy features, widely adopted and free.
I work in Visual Studio working on sites mostly myself and occasionally I start on new features for a site and bam a bug pops up on the live site and now I am in the middle of changes and can't post a fix to the bug until everything I started to change is complete.
So I am looking for a nice an simple way to work with this type of situation - any suggestions?
Are you asking for a recommendation of a source control system? SourceGear Vault is free for single users.
I am big fan of subversion. There also plugins for VS to work with subversion repository.
http://subversion.tigris.org/
http://ankhsvn.open.collab.net/
I am in a similar situation and I use Perforce. It is free for up to two users and integrates well with Visual Studio.
Subversion is well supported and has tools for most any environment. It's also mostly straightforward to use, so you should be able to get up and running quickly.
If you need to work on a lot of separate features and bugs at the same time, you might try Mercurial instead. The tooling support is a lot less mature but I find the distributed design to do a better job of merging and facilitating work on separate issues concurrently.
But really, if you aren't using anything currently and aren't sure what your needs are, just choose one that has support in the IDE/tools you use. It will probably be Subversion.
I have created a desktop app and now I need to install in on a client's computer.
However, the client would like to have a wizard to install. Like Visual Studio setup project allows you to add an installer.
Does Qt allow you to create an installer or do I need to use a 3rd party installer like InstallShield or Wise?
You should use the Qt Installer Framework :
http://doc.qt.io/qtinstallerframework/ifw-overview.html
I use Inno and like it a lot. I've tried a few others and this one worked well for me. (and free)
You definitely need a third party installer. A few good ones have already been mentioned. If you decide to go with a paid solution bitrock's installer is a perfect choice and they are also Qt centric and their main business is around Qt.
As an open source alternative I would suggest NSIS
If you only target Windows, you can use WiX (Windows Installer XML), which can be integrated into Visual Studio and MSBuild, so relatively easy to use. It's free and produces valid MSI files, which may be a requirement anyway.
If you rather need a simple wizard setup, give InnoSetup a try.
I think better to use a third party software like installshield. They are optimized for the packaging purpose and provide much customizable options.
If you have Visual Studio already, you can continue to use a setup project to distribute your application. The tools are built in. This is the technology that WiX "replaced" (more on that later), and it's what I do. It's not an ideal solution, but it gets me an MSI, which is how Windows software should be installed these days. Using InstallShield or something might be better, but to be honest I've never had a good experience with any third party installers. This is why I just stuck with the less-than-ideal setup project; it beats spending a lot on expensive, ugly and often frustrating third party installer creation tools. In short, it's a very pragmatic solution, and pragmatic solutions make sense.
As for WiX: I really don't recommend it at all. It seems like a great idea, but after a few months I found myself switching back to the setup projects. Even though he's been using WiX for a year more than I have been using setup projects, our WiX expert takes twice as long to get anything done. (He's a terrific programmer, too, just a bit blinded by open source.) You end up with thousands of copied text lines that you need to maintain. With a couple different projects, it becomes an unmaintainable mess.
I would not suggest attempting to build an installer in Qt yourself. In addition to having to get a lot of behavior just right, as a Qt application it will require the Qt libraries. Unless you statically link them, which is possible with the commercial edition (not LGPL) but difficult and not recommended. Plus then you'd be including two copies of the Qt libraries in your download.
Qt itself seems to use the nullsoft installer. That alone should tell you building your own is not a good idea. :)
My company has a common code library which consists of many class libary projects along with supporting test projects. Each class library project outputs a single binary, e.g. Company.Common.Serialization.dll. Since we own the compiled, tested binaries as well as the source code, there's debate as to whether our consuming applications should use binary or project references.
Some arguments in favor of project references:
Project references would allow users to debug and view all solution code without the overhead of loading additional projects/solutions.
Project references would assist in keeping up with common component changes committed to the source control system as changes would be easily identifiable without the active solution.
Some arguments in favor of binary references:
Binary references would simplify solutions and make for faster solution loading times.
Binary references would allow developers to focus on new code rather than potentially being distracted by code which is already baked and proven stable.
Binary references would force us to appropriately dogfood our stuff as we would be using the common library just as those outside of our organization would be required to do.
Since a binary reference can't be debugged (stepped into), one would be forced to replicate and fix issues by extending the existing test projects rather than testing and fixing within the context of the consuming application alone.
Binary references will ensure that concurrent development on the class library project will have no impact on the consuming application as a stable version of the binary will be referenced rather than an influx version. It would be the decision of the project lead whether or not to incorporate a newer release of the component if necessary.
What is your policy/preference when it comes to using project or binary references?
It sounds to me as though you've covered all the major points. We've had a similar discussion at work recently and we're not quite decided yet.
However, one thing we've looked into is to reference the binary files, to gain all the advantages you note, but have the binaries built by a common build system where the source code is in a common location, accessible from all developer machines (at least if they're sitting on the network at work), so that any debugging can in fact dive into library code, if necessary.
However, on the same note, we've also tagged a lot of the base classes with appropriate attributes in order to make the debugger skip them completely, because any debugging you do in your own classes (at the level you're developing) would only be vastly outsized by code from the base libraries. This way when you hit the Step Into debugging shortcut key on a library class, you resurface into the next piece of code at your current level, instead of having to wade through tons of library code.
Basically, I definitely vote up (in SO terms) your comments about keeping proven library code out of sight for the normal developer.
Also, if I load the global solution file, that contains all the projects and basically, just everything, ReSharper 4 seems to have some kind of coronary problem, as Visual Studio practically comes to a stand-still.
In my opinion the greatest problem with using project references is that it does not provide consumers with a common baseline for their development. I am assuming that the libraries are changing. If that's the case, building them and ensuring that they are versioned will give you an easily reproducible environment.
Not doing this will mean that your code will mysteriously break when the referenced project changes. But only on some machines.
I tend to treat common libraries like this as 3rd-party resources. This allows the library to have it's own build processes, QA testing, etc. When QA (or whomever) "blesses" a release of the library, it's copied to a central location available to all developers. It's then up to each project to decide which version of the library to consume by copying the binaries to a project folder and using binary references in the projects.
One thing that is important is to create debug symbol (pdb) files with each build of the library and make those available as well. The other option is to actually create a local symbol store on your network and have each developer add that symbol store to their VS configuration. This would allow you to debug through the code and still have the benefits of usinng binary references.
As for the benefits you mention for project references, I don't agree with your second point. To me, it's important that the consuming projects explicitly know which version of the common library they are consuming and for them to take a deliberate step to upgrade that version. This is the best way to guarantee that you don't accidentally pick up changes to the library that haven't been completed or tested.
when you don't want it in your solution, or have potential to split your solution, send all library output to a common, bin directory and reference there.
I have done this in order to allow developers to open a tight solution that only has the Domain, tests and Web projects. Our win services, and silverlight stuff, and web control libraries are in seperate solutions that include the projects you need when looking at those, but nant can build it all.
I believe your question is actually about when projects go together in the same solution; the reason being that projects in the same solution should have project references to each other, and projects in different solutions should have binary references to each other.
I tend to think solutions should contain projects that are developed closely together. Such as your API assemblies and your implementations of those APIs.
Closeness is relative, however. A designer for an application, by definition, is closely related to the app, however you wouldn't want to have the designer and the application within the same solution (if they are at all complex, that is). You'd probably want to develop the designer against a branch of the program that is merged at intervals further spaced apart than the normal daily integration.
I think that if the project is not part of the solution, you shouldn't include it there... but that's just my opinion
I separate it by concept in short