http://ayende.comAyende @ RahienCopyright (C) Ayende Rahien 2004 - 2021 (c) 202660Re Nant & MSBuild, you are also using psake and msbuild right now, I don't see a difference. It's now like you had to create another xml file to configure msbuild. http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment27http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment27Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:03:33 GMTOkay, figured it out, it depends where you put it. When I put it in a task, it didn't work http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment26http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment26Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:07:22 GMTMaybe you have an older version of psake? This works with the latest psake: [http://gist.github.com/179067](http://gist.github.com/179067)http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment25http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment25Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:57:23 GMTChris, Just tried include, and it didn't work, I guess it isn't bringing it to the local scope or something like that. http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment24http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment24Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:15:45 GMTLyndsay, You said it, you are using MSBuild & Nant to build it. http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment23http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment23Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:13:34 GMTWhat problem do you have building WPF apps with NAnt? I'm using VS2008, MSBuild and NAnt to build a WPF ClickOnce app quite successfully at the moment. Perhaps I'm missing something. http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment22http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment22Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:03:49 GMTYou can just: include psake_ext.ps1 But then you need to put all your functions in global:, which kind of sucks. See [groups.google.com/.../7fc875b5dca3502b7](http://groups.google.com/group/psake-users/browse_thread/thread/7fc875b5dca3502b7) Not that there are any advantages to include, I guess, other than it seems a little more readable. http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment21http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment21Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:20:57 GMTChris, I don't know how to include files :-) And my ext file is really lousy: [github.com/.../psake_ext.ps1](http://github.com/ayende/rhino-mocks/blob/5719a4ca467856f324d6d2c4c9526ea42edc6cb2/psake_ext.ps1)http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment20http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment20Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:11:24 GMTYou can still build using the mono tools on windows, and guess what: mono can even use assemblies _not_ built using the mono tools. Even if you cared about building Rhino Tools for mono, whether or not to use powershell in your build is the least of your concerns. Any idea when/if you are going to put this in Rhino-Tools? I recently started using psake and would like to take a look at your psake_ext.ps1. How come you dot-sourced it and didn't just "include" it? http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment19http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment19Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:03:59 GMTHi Ayende, may you found this post also interesting: [www.lanwin.de/.../a-powershell-make-clone-poshmake](http://www.lanwin.de/2009/08/31/a-powershell-make-clone-poshmake/) http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment18http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment18Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:59:55 GMTIf I need to write OO code to handle my build, I already lost http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment17http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment17Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:39:35 GMTAlso Sean, PowerShell is a great dynamic language, and you're only going to miss Ruby's OO-ness. If you're writing scripts, I'd say all the little touches done for PowerShell make it superior to Ruby. As for the OO-ness, PowerShell has the ability in PowerShell V1 to add members and methods to an object at runtime via the add-member cmdlet, but it's verbose and all an object's members are public, so I acknowledge this isn't ideal. I've abused the add-member cmdlet here: [www.pseale.com/.../...terScriptingGamesEvent5.aspx](http://www.pseale.com/blog/2008WinterScriptingGamesEvent5.aspx) PowerShell V2 lets you write C# classes inline in your PowerShell scripts that can be compiled and instantiated like any other .NET object. I haven't used this feature so I won't vouch for it. http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment16http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment16Mon, 31 Aug 2009 03:11:06 GMTI like psake and have used it, but I already had some "owie" moments where psake did something unexpected. The next time I need a build script, I'll just do raw PowerShell--the only thing I'm losing is the task dependency management, which isn't a loss to me--tasks can be reformulated as function calls (or maybe cmdlets, I haven't thought this through much). Instead of making tasks dependent on each other, you'd just call the function. I haven't totally thought through this, but it seems like dependency management for tasks isn't necessary for build scripts. http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment15http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment15Mon, 31 Aug 2009 03:01:08 GMTWow - that looks really nice. That looks like it would be very easy to maintain/extend. Enjoy! Jeffrey Snover [MSFT] Distinguished Engineer Visit the Windows PowerShell Team blog at: [http://blogs.msdn.com/PowerShell](http://blogs.msdn.com/PowerShell) Visit the Windows PowerShell ScriptCenter at: [www.microsoft.com/.../msh.mspx](http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/hubs/msh.mspx) http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment14http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment14Mon, 31 Aug 2009 01:29:29 GMTStuart, No idea, I apply YAGNI here. There is small enough infrastructure that I don't really worry about this http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment13http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment13Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:58:59 GMTMike, I have absolutely no idea, it wasn't necessary so far http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment12http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment12Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:57:47 GMTSean, PowerSheel _is_ a programing language http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment11http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment11Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:56:45 GMT@Ayende If/when compiling on Mono becomes a priority for you and you go to take care of it, what will you do? Do you reckon it will be easy enough to add Mono as a psake target, or do you expect you might have to change build systems? (I have no interest in powershell, but after a cursory look at psake.ps1 it seems to me that adding Mono support might not be too difficult.) http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment10http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment10Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:05:37 GMTI'm currently having some success with IronRuby + Rake (click my link to see recent blog post about that). I like the fact that you easily can write Rake tasks that manipulate your own .NET business or utility objects. The downside of IronRuby is the extra dependency and it's still a touch slow. http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment9http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment9Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:30:22 GMTI've been intrigued by powershell for some time now. From what I read ,the pipe structure is very powerful because you're piping .NET objects instead of just strings. I'd imagine that the PSake tasks are defined as commandlets allowing you to define new tasks in C#. http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment8http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment8Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:06:31 GMTI think I still prefer the rake solution because it includes everything you need. When you need shell constructs, they're available in rake. When you need programming constructs, they're also there right in the buildfile, instead of having to use one language to sew up a patchwork quilt of shell scripts in a 2nd language and 3rd party tools in yet a 3rd language. http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment7http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment7Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:55:29 GMTJeremy, Probably not that much longer, but using the shell is much easier than a programming language. Most of the tools already have command line interface http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment6http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment6Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:07:39 GMT@Orb, Compiling on Mono is not a priority for me. When it does, I'll take care of it. @John, Psake is actually smaller & easier, I find. http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment5http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment5Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:05:01 GMTOut of curiousity -- how many lines would that have been in C#? Going through reworking our current build system at work, I keep wondering if it wouldn't be more straightforward to write the majority of the build in C# and have a very small script that built that project and ran it... Added benefit is people don't have to grok a different language like Ruby, msbuild, nant, powershell to use it. http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment4http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment4Sun, 30 Aug 2009 15:46:17 GMTyou can use ruby + rake without requiring Ruby to be installed. AllInOneRuby packages Ruby and your Gems into an executable. Ruby+Rake is about 3mb. http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment3http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment3Sun, 30 Aug 2009 15:20:35 GMT@Orb: There is a cross-platform powershell implementation based on the 1.0 release available: [igorshare.wordpress.com/.../pash-cross-platform...](http://igorshare.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/pash-cross-platform-powershell-is-out-in-the-wild-announcement/) I have not used it (caveat emptor); however it is reported to support the entire 1.0 language and syntax set. The items that are not supported are the windoze-specific items, like WMI. http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment2http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment2Sun, 30 Aug 2009 13:33:08 GMTAnd there goes your ability to build on mono. Of course, if they'd fix xbuild so that it actully worked... http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment1http://ayende.com/4156/on-psake#comment1Sun, 30 Aug 2009 13:22:44 GMT