ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jose Alberto Fernandez" <j_a_fernan...@yahoo.com>
Subject RE: Another feature request??
Date Thu, 29 Mar 2001 01:44:53 GMT
Peter,

I have to disagree with you. One thing is to say, the default default is
XYZ. Another thing completely is to force everyone to have the same name for
the default.

What you are proposing is equivalent to say that port 80 is the only port
for HTTP whether you like it or not and there is no way to specify another.

Finally, I for one have change the default in my files from time to time
because I may have added some more stuff and now the full build has a
different top level.

I do not buy the argument of being more understandable or simple at all.
There are plenty of attributes that you need to know to build a build file,
to say that removing default will make things significantly easier makes no
sense to me.

Jose Alberto

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Donald [mailto:donaldp@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 2:05 AM
> To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Cc: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Another feature request??
>
>
> At 10:44  29/3/01 +1000, Conor MacNeill wrote:
> >
> >> At 09:35  29/3/01 +1000, Conor MacNeill wrote:
> >> >-1,
> >> >
> >> >Why change from an explicit declaration of the default target to
> >> one based
> >> >on implicit convention. You can adopt this convention without
> >> changing Ant.
> >> >Why force it everyone else?
> >>
> >> simplicity. One less complexity, one less reason for users to
> >> look at build
> >> file, etc
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >
> >One more implicit thing to remember. One more thing not
> obvious from the
> >build file. It is similar to the argument against an "init" target.
>
> Well I would have to disagree ;)
>
> Well known start state is much more easier for the user.
> Could you imagine
> if we had to specify everything all the time?
>
> http://someaddress.com:80/
>
> or
>
> http://someaddress.com/
>
> Is the second approach harder to understand or easier?
>
> I would say that it is obvious from the build file because
> all build files
> would have the same start state.
>
> As a matter of fact I would alos like to remove the name attribute of
> project for it can more simply be represented by
>
> <property name="ant.project.name" value="Foo" />
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>
> *-----------------------------------------------------*
> | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
> | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
> | everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
> |              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |
> *-----------------------------------------------------*
>


Mime
View raw message