Differences between CruiseControl (original) and CruiseControl.NET

Question

Are there any differences between the CruiseControl source interface and .NET? I compared 2, but I can not find big differences, except for the language in which it was developed. I want to use either one of them for (automated) testing of web applications using Selenium and Subversion, maybe even Groovy but I don’t know what to choose.

[edit] Looking at CC and Hudson, I chose Hudson for this simplicity, it already has plugins for running Groovy and Selenium scripts, as well as

Answer 1

Choose me, choose me! (I am working on the original CruiseControl.)

I have never used CC.NET, but from what I know, I agree that they are pretty comparable. Probably the most important difference is only cross-platform or Windows.

Now I wonder how long until someone comes and says both of them shit, and you should try Hudson ?;)

(And, of course, many other options ...)

Answer 2

CruiseControl.NET (cc.net hereinafter) has build queues ( http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/CCNET/Project+Configuration+Block ), which allows you to serialize assemblies that depend on a specific assembly order. I am in the process of emulating this behavior in the java version of cruisecontrol, but the functionality does not map one to one. The reason, however, is that I generally switch from the .net version to the java version, because the .net kernel drops mono (cc.net night build and mono night build two months ago). The error is related to the processing of monos threads, but voids are trying to start cc.net.

Documentation on this issue can be difficult if you do not notice the version numbers that correspond to the configuration / documentation examples (confluence.public.thoughtworks.org has updated configuration documentation, whereas ccnet.sourceforge.net has I know that ccnet is most likely a dead site, but if you do not carefully read the data for each page you visit, this may bite you.)

In addition, blocking the sourcecontrol for cvs and svn in cc.net is more granular and featurerich than their counterpart in the java version, but this was not a problem in my work. The java version also easily extends / modifies the behavior of re: plugin, but you just would like to see that such work goes upstream, not forking.

I'm just impressed with both the java version and fork in .net (modulo mono runtime behavior), but you really don't want to try any other cruisecontrol forks. I had peripheral experience with hudson, and the functions were simply not enough to persuade me to cruisecontrol. Hudson has a (somewhat colored) map comparing Hudson and CruiseControl (java) at http://hudson.gotdns.com/wiki/display/HUDSON/Home

A viable alternative is the implemented python buildbot ( http://buildbot.net/trac ). It doesn't have fancy gui panels, and the setup is a bit command line related, but if you are doing distributed assemblies, it is very easy to set up and run it.

Answer 3

I think that for you it comes down to the operating system, the original can work on nix, and the .net version works on windows.

There are other automated build utilities that can do this, such as TeamCity in the Windows space, and cruisecontrol.rb in the ruby ​​world.

There is also a PowerShell-based build utility called pSake that can poll subversion and complete tasks.