ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Conor MacNeill" <co...@m64.com>
Subject RE: [PATCH] Inheriting properties from a parent project (Project.java , ProjectHelper.java, Ant.java)
Date Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:24:16 GMT
Glenn,

I do not think it will make this release :-). My initial reaction was some
reservations about introducing a project hierarchy. Somehow I would rather
see Project as self contained, not having to know whether it has a parent or
not. As I said, that is just my initial reaction. Are others comfortable
with this?

Perhaps you could also address the root problem by removing the reference to
the Project object in the ant task once p1.executeTarget returns, making it
eligible for GC.

Conor


> -----Original Message-----
> From: glennm@ca.ibm.com [mailto:glennm@ca.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, 17 July 2000 23:00
> To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Inheriting properties from a parent project
> (Project.java , ProjectHelper.java, Ant.java)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Any comments from commiters on this?  Thanks.
>
> Glenn McAllister
> TID - Software Developer - VisualAge for Java
> IBM Toronto Lab, (416) 448-3805
> "An approximate answer to the right question is better than the
> right answer to the wrong question." - John W. Tukey
>
>
> Please respond to ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
>
> To:        ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> cc:
> Subject:        [PATCH] Inheriting properties from a parent project
> (Project.java        , ProjectHelper.java, Ant.java)
>
> Hey all.
>
> I have a _very_ large master project that needs to call literally hundreds
> of subbuilds (and please don't ask why :-)  Every time the "ant" task is
> called, it creates a new project and copies all of the "parent" project's
> properties into it.  When I tried it I ran out of memory due to this
> horrendous duplication of property values.
>
> This patch introduces the concept of a parent project, and the use of
> java.util.Properties to hold the property lists, rather than a Hashtable.
> The use of the parent values should be extended furthur, but I only had
> time to implement it for properties today.  The amount of time required to
> set up subbuilds is drastically reduced, as is the memory requirements.
> All the current rules for setting property values are still enforced - no
> changes there.
>
> Comments?
>
> [ SNIP ]
>
>
>


Mime
View raw message