ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jay Glanville" <>
Subject RE: Logger flexibility answer?
Date Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:43:17 GMT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Bodewig []
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 3:55 AM
> Jay Glanville <> wrote:
> > On Thursday, I made a request that Ant2 have a more flexible logger
> > system.  Since then, I've given more thought on the functionality
> > that I'd need.  So, now, I'm introducing the concept of a <recorder>
> > task, and I'd like some feedback.
> First feedback: I like this idea - much better than specifying a
> logfile on a task by task level IMHO.
> Maybe you should add a loglevel attribute as well? This way you could
> get verbose output from a specific task by wrapping between two
> recorder tasks. I see, you have this in your "future" section.

Yea, I first wanted to get basic functionality working first - starting and
stopping the recorder.  The loglevel was the first thing I was going to
focus on after completing the core work.

> The only thing I don't really like too much is the concept of
> automatically logging specific targets, I think this should be
> achieved via dependencies. For the same reason I don't like the
> includetasks feature from your "future" section.

I realized when I wrote the document that this type of functionality would
cause weird and interesting behaviour who's intent might not be totally
obvious to the user.

The reason I thought of the [in|ex]cludetarget attributes was so that a user
could record just the targets that were important to them without having to
manually start and stop the recorder.

> What would your current implementation do in a case like this:
> <target name="setup">
>   <recorder includetarget="compile,jar" ... />
> </target>
> <target name="compile" depends="setup">
>   <javac ... />
>   <recorder action="stop" ... />
>   <copy />
> </target>
> <target name="jar" depends="compile" ...
> Would the copy task in compile be logged? Would the jar target be
> logged at all?

You're right.  The jar would not be logged. However, if the declaration for
the jar target was something like this:
  <target name="jar" depends="setup,compile" ...
you'd get a different result.

However, now that people are starting to give feedback, I think what I'll do
is focus on just the basics (filename, action/start/stop, and append) and
move the in(ex)cludetarget to the "futures" section.  Then, I'll give focus
to the item in the futures section that people are asking for the most (most
likely loglevel).

> Stefan

thanks for the feedback.  always appreciated

View raw message