ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Diane Holt <>
Subject Re: Searching for build.xml
Date Thu, 02 Nov 2000 07:37:40 GMT
I also "voted -1" on this (not that I actually get to vote...), since it
seemed an odd behaviour, and seemed like it could get "dangerous". I've
learned to live with it by naming any build-files other than the top-level
one anything but build.xml -- then I have targets in the top-level
build-file that run the targets in the (few) "sub" ones I do have, so you
can still just say "ant <targ>" (if you're running something other than
the default), without having to specify a -f <build_file> or having to
worry about what directory (or subdir) you're actually in. This might not
be the optimal approach (and I am starting to look into refining this a
bit), but when I first started trying out using subproject build-files, I
got bit pretty quick.


--- Conor MacNeill <> wrote:
> As you may recall I expressed some reservations about the feature
> introduced
> in ant 1.2 whereby ant will search up the directory tree for a build.xml
> file
> I recently asked my sysadmin to install ant 1.2 on our Unix system and,
> after reading the release notes, he sent me a colourful email, attached
> below.
> Dose anyone else, or their sysadmins, think this is a problem?
> Thoughts?
> Conor
> > It is not reasonable to assume a user has control of parent
> directories
> > as you move towards the root, so you get security issues
> (potentially),
> > performance issues (potentially, haven't these guys heard of NFS?) and
> > unexpected behaviour in multi level source trees (most probable - 95%
> > of confusion/complaints will come from there).
> >
> > I can't think of a good reason for it, if you really needed to run
> > higher level ant files you'd have ant -f ../../build.xml
> >
> > I've neve seen a piece of userland software (of its
> > own accord) investigate much past ".." or "../somedir".
> >
> > If they insisit on having it as a feature, it'd be quite useful to
> >
> > 	a. allow the sane to disable the feature with a command line
> > 	   switch (an environment variable is probably too subtle)
> >
> > 	b. make sure we only ever used a patched version in the office
> > 	   so it never bites us
> >
> --
> Conor MacNeill
> Cortex eBusiness


Do You Yahoo!?
View raw message