Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Apache Ant vs Jenkins: What are the differences?
Introduction
Apache Ant and Jenkins are both popular tools used in software development for automation purposes. While both tools serve similar purposes, there are key differences between them that make each tool unique in its own way.
Integration and Extensibility: One of the key differences between Apache Ant and Jenkins is their level of integration and extensibility. Apache Ant is a build automation tool primarily used for compiling, testing, and deploying software. It is a standalone tool that requires manual configuration and scripting for any integration with other tools or workflows. On the other hand, Jenkins is a continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) tool that provides a highly extensible platform. Jenkins allows seamless integration with various software development tools and workflows through its extensive plugin ecosystem, making it easier to automate complex build and deployment processes.
User Interface and Visualization: Another difference between Apache Ant and Jenkins lies in their user interfaces and visualization capabilities. Apache Ant provides a command-line interface (CLI) that requires developers to write XML-based build scripts manually. The output and progress of the build process are displayed in the CLI, which may not provide detailed visual representations. Jenkins, on the other hand, offers a web-based user interface (UI) that provides an intuitive and graphical way to configure and monitor build jobs. It offers real-time visualization of build status, test results, and other critical information through its customizable dashboards and detailed build logs, enhancing the visibility and understanding of the entire CI/CD process.
Build Triggers and Scheduling: Apache Ant and Jenkins also differ in their capabilities for triggering and scheduling builds. Apache Ant relies on manual execution or external triggers to initiate build processes. Developers need to explicitly run the build scripts or configure external tools for triggering the build process. Jenkins, on the other hand, provides a wide range of build triggers and scheduling options out-of-the-box. It supports various triggers such as polling of version control systems, time-based scheduling, remote API calls, and even event-driven triggers. Jenkins allows developers to define flexible build schedules and automate the entire build process without constant manual intervention.
Distributed Build and Scalability: When it comes to distributed build and scalability, Jenkins surpasses Apache Ant. While Apache Ant is typically limited to running build processes on a single machine, Jenkins provides a distributed architecture that allows the distribution of build processes across multiple machines or nodes. This distributed build capability improves scalability and allows parallel execution of multiple build jobs, leading to faster build times, especially in large-scale software development environments.
Reporting and Notifications: Reporting and notification capabilities also differ between Apache Ant and Jenkins. Apache Ant does not offer built-in reporting or notification features. If developers require customized reports or notifications, they need to manually integrate external tools or scripts into their build process. Jenkins, on the other hand, provides comprehensive reporting and notification features as part of its core functionality. It offers built-in support for generating detailed build reports, test reports, and code coverage reports. Additionally, Jenkins allows developers to configure various notification channels like email, instant messaging, and third-party integrations to notify stakeholders about build failures, test results, or other critical events.
Job Configuration and Flexibility: Apache Ant and Jenkins vary in terms of job configuration and flexibility. Apache Ant uses XML-based build scripts, which can sometimes be complex and cumbersome to maintain, especially for large-scale projects with multiple dependencies. Jenkins, on the other hand, offers an easy-to-use web-based interface for configuring build jobs. It provides a wide range of options and parameters for job configurations, such as source code repositories, build steps, build environments, and post-build actions. This flexibility makes it easier to manage and customize build workflows, allowing developers to quickly adapt to project requirements.
In summary, Apache Ant is primarily a build automation tool with manual configuration and limited integration, while Jenkins is a powerful CI/CD tool with extensive integration capabilities, visualization, scheduling, distributed builds, reporting, and job management flexibility.
We are currently using Azure Pipelines for continous integration. Our applications are developed witn .NET framework. But when we look at the online Jenkins is the most widely used tool for continous integration. Can you please give me the advice which one is best to use for my case Azure pipeline or jenkins.
If your source code is on GitHub, also take a look at Github actions. https://github.com/features/actions
I'm open to anything. just want something that break less and doesn't need me to pay for it, and can be hosted on Docker. our scripting language is powershell core. so it's better to support it. also we are building dotnet core in our pipeline, so if they have anything related that helps with the CI would be nice.
Google cloud build can help you. It is hosted on cloud and also provide reasonable free quota.
I'm planning to setup complete CD-CD setup for spark and python application which we are going to deploy in aws lambda and EMR Cluster. Which tool would be best one to choose. Since my company is trying to adopt to concourse i would like to understand what are the lack of capabilities concourse have . Thanks in advance !
I would definetly recommend Concourse to you, as it is one of the most advanced modern methods of making CI/CD while Jenkins is an old monolithic dinosaur. Concourse itself is cloudnative and containerbased which helps you to build simple, high-performance and scalable CI/CD pipelines. In my opinion, the only lack of skills you have with Concourse is your own knowledge of how to build pipelines and automate things. Technincally there is no lack, i would even say you can extend it way more easily. But as a Con it is more easy to interact with Jenkins if you are only used to UIs. Concourse needs someone which is capable of using CLIs.
From a StackShare Community member: "Currently we use Travis CI and have optimized it as much as we can so our builds are fairly quick. Our boss is all about redundancy so we are looking for another solution to fall back on in case Travis goes down and/or jacks prices way up (they were recently acquired). Could someone recommend which CI we should go with and if they have time, an explanation of how they're different?"
We use CircleCI because of the better value it provides in its plans. I'm sure we could have used Travis just as easily but we found CircleCI's pricing to be more reasonable. In the two years since we signed up, the service has improved. CircleCI is always innovating and iterating on their platform. We have been very satisfied.
As the maintainer of the Karate DSL open-source project - I found Travis CI very easy to integrate into the GitHub workflow and it has been steady sailing for more than 2 years now ! It works well for Java / Apache Maven projects and we were able to configure it to use the latest Oracle JDK as per our needs. Thanks to the Travis CI team for this service to the open-source community !
I use Google Cloud Build because it's my first foray into the CICD world(loving it so far), and I wanted to work with something GCP native to avoid giving permissions to other SaaS tools like CircleCI and Travis CI.
I really like it because it's free for the first 120 minutes, and it's one of the few CICD tools that enterprises are open to using since it's contained within GCP.
One of the unique things is that it has the Kaniko cache, which speeds up builds by creating intermediate layers within the docker image vs. pushing the full thing from the start. Helpful when you're installing just a few additional dependencies.
Feel free to checkout an example: Cloudbuild Example
I use Travis CI because of various reasons - 1. Cloud based system so no dedicated server required, and you do not need to administrate it. 2. Easy YAML configuration. 3. Supports Major Programming Languages. 4. Support of build matrix 6. Supports AWS, Azure, Docker, Heroku, Google Cloud, Github Pages, PyPi and lot more. 7. Slack Notifications.
You are probably looking at another hosted solution: Jenkins is a good tool but it way too work intensive to be used as just a backup solution.
I have good experience with Circle-CI, Codeship, Drone.io and Travis (as well as problematic experiences with all of them), but my go-to tool is Gitlab CI: simple, powerful and if you have problems with their limitations or pricing, you can always install runners somewhere and use Gitlab just for scheduling and management. Even if you don't host your git repository at Gitlab, you can have Gitlab pull changes automatically from wherever you repo lives.
If you are considering Jenkins I would recommend at least checking out Buildkite. The agents are self-hosted (like Jenkins) but the interface is hosted for you. It meshes up some of the things I like about hosted services (pipeline definitions in YAML, managed interface and authentication) with things I like about Jenkins (local customizable agent images, secrets only on own instances, custom agent level scripts, sizing instances to your needs).
Within our deployment pipeline, we have a need to deploy to multiple customer environments, and manage secrets specifically in a way that integrates well with AWS, Kubernetes Secrets, Terraform and our pipelines ourselves.
Jenkins offered us the ability to choose one of a number of credentials/secrets management approaches, and models secrets as a more dynamic concept that GitHub Actions provided.
Additionally, we are operating Jenkins within our development Kubernetes cluster as a kind of system-wide orchestrator, allowing us to use Kubernetes pods as build agents, avoiding the ongoing direct costs associated with GitHub Actions minutes / per-user pricing. Obviously as a consequence we take on the indirect costs of maintain Jenkins itself, patching it, upgrading etc. However our experience with managing Jenkins via Kubernetes and declarative Jenkins configuration has led us to believe that this cost is small, particularly as the majority of actual building and testing is handled inside docker containers and Kubernetes, alleviating the need for less supported plugins that may make Jenkins administration more difficult.
Jenkins is a pretty flexible, complete tool. Especially I love the possibility to configure jobs as a code with Jenkins pipelines.
CircleCI is well suited for small projects where the main task is to run continuous integration as quickly as possible. Travis CI is recommended primarily for open-source projects that need to be tested in different environments.
And for something a bit larger I prefer to use Jenkins because it is possible to make serious system configuration thereby different plugins. In Jenkins, I can change almost anything. But if you want to start the CI chain as soon as possible, Jenkins may not be the right choice.
Pros of Apache Ant
- Flexible4
- Simple1
- Easy to learn1
- Easy to write own java-build-hooks1
Pros of Jenkins
- Hosted internally523
- Free open source469
- Great to build, deploy or launch anything async318
- Tons of integrations243
- Rich set of plugins with good documentation211
- Has support for build pipelines111
- Easy setup68
- It is open-source66
- Workflow plugin53
- Configuration as code13
- Very powerful tool12
- Many Plugins11
- Continuous Integration10
- Great flexibility10
- Git and Maven integration is better9
- 100% free and open source8
- Github integration7
- Slack Integration (plugin)7
- Easy customisation6
- Self-hosted GitLab Integration (plugin)6
- Docker support5
- Pipeline API5
- Fast builds4
- Platform idnependency4
- Hosted Externally4
- Excellent docker integration4
- It`w worked3
- Customizable3
- Can be run as a Docker container3
- It's Everywhere3
- JOBDSL3
- AWS Integration3
- Easily extendable with seamless integration2
- PHP Support2
- Build PR Branch Only2
- NodeJS Support2
- Ruby/Rails Support2
- Universal controller2
- Loose Coupling2
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Apache Ant
- Slow1
- Old and not widely used anymore1
Cons of Jenkins
- Workarounds needed for basic requirements13
- Groovy with cumbersome syntax10
- Plugins compatibility issues8
- Lack of support7
- Limited abilities with declarative pipelines7
- No YAML syntax5
- Too tied to plugins versions4
Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions
What is Apache Ant?
What is Jenkins?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
What companies use Apache Ant?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
What tools integrate with Apache Ant?
What tools integrate with Jenkins?
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Blog Posts
+7
+4
+7
+4
+17
+22
+42
+37