ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Will Uther <wi...@cs.cmu.edu>
Subject RE: Ant project versus jmk (Java in Make)
Date Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:24:09 GMT
--On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 10:04 PM +0100 "Kuiper, Arnout"
<Arnout.Kuiper@nl.origin-it.com> wrote:

> With Ant, I have one simple build-file that does it all for me, with
> little or no
> maintenance. There is only one feature of jmk that I miss in Ant, and that
> are the
> compile dependencies.
>
> This feature could be put in the Javac task. I would separate the
> dependency-file
> from the build-file (such that it can be (re)generated automatically (I
> wrote a
> utility for that a while ago, which could be promoted to a task when
> preferred).

I'd love to have that utility!  That sounds cool.  I don't suppose it
handles different levels of dependancy (as I mentioned in the recent
'implcit dependancies' thread)?

Regards having a separate file, is that neccessary?  If you had some form
of include arrangement then you could just read the other XML file.  Not
sure which of these I prefer.  Does XML have a standard include syntax?  Is
it supported by the parser used in ANT?

> The format of the dependency file can be anything. I would prefer XML
> a-la:
> 
> <dependencies>
>   <file name="pckg/xyz.java">
>     <depends name="pckg/test.java">
>     <depends name="pckg/abc.java">
>   </file>
>   ...
> </dependencies>
> 
> The logic could be placed after the selection of files based on date. Just
> add
> the files that are dependant on files on the list to that same list.

I prefer the more complex logic I mentioned in the "implicit dependencies"
thread.  There is no need to recompile something that depends upon the
public interface if only the private interface has changed.

> This would save me a couple of clean rebuilds each day.

yup.

> How about this?

I'm interested :)

\x/ill          :-}


Mime
View raw message