ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Diane Holt <>
Subject Ack!
Date Thu, 07 Jun 2001 18:33:03 GMT
Peter and Jose Alberto -- is there any way you guys could shake hands and
start over?  For the record: When Peter mentioned "lieing" (ie., "lying"),
he was listing those things, in general, that will send him into his
less-than-diplomatic mode (and I believe it was actually a sideways
reference to a completely separate thread with a completely different
person -- 'nuff said).  He said he thought your ideas were "inane", not
"insane" -- although I'm not sure that makes the comment any better
(having already adjudged them as such makes it difficult for you to
evaluate them objectively, Peter, doesn't it?).  And as for "tirades" --
you've both sent lots of long messages on this topic, but I'm not sure
either side could be seen as having been a "tirade" (long, alone, doesn't

You both have strong and, apparently, very different opinions on this --
but surely there must be a way to hash those out without getting mired in
did-to/did-not stuff, yes?  

As for the real topic -- personally, I'm a bit more in Jose Alberto's camp
-- I'd just as soon not have templating than to have to go with an
explicit 2-stage process to get it.  If you can hide the stages (eg., 'cc'
can actually be a 3-stage process [preprocessor, compiler, linker], but I
can still just say 'cc' instead of having to invoke 'cpp', 'cc', 'ld'),
then I might be okay with it.  I also like the suggestion (I think it was
Conor's?) of having a way to specify default settings for task attributes
(eg., javac.debug=no). I like it much better than the "template"-type
thing I suggested, since you don't have to name your template and then
refer to its name -- you can just refer to the regular task name instead.

I haven't contributed much to the discussion up to this point, because I
still feel more like an Ant end-user than a developer, so I really can't
comment on the technical aspects of what either side is proposing.  What
I'd really like to see is some examples of how what's being proposed would
work on the end-user side.  And/or maybe some higher-level explanation of
why Plan A would be better/worse/easier/harder to use/maintain(the tool
and/or the build-files) than Plan B.


--- Jose Alberto Fernandez <> wrote:
> > From: Peter Donald []
> >
> > At 05:18 PM 6/6/01 +0100, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
> > >
> > >	lieing,
> >
> > never accused you of that
> Read again the message I was replying to. I cut & pasted these words
> from
> there.
> >
> > > insane,
> >
> > never accused you of that
> >
> > >tirade
> >
> > is descriptipe of your efforts.
> >
> > >I have heard your arguments I have not being convinced by
> > them. If you want,
> > >we can agree to disagree and live it at that.
> >
> > Most people would who disagree actually give reasons, the conversation
> > continues and solution is produced. Interesting that you
> > choose not to go
> > this path.
> >
> I have given reason to you, plenty of them. You do not accept them,
> fine.
> That is your prerogative. It won't make me loose my sleep.
> > >About my supposedly false statement:
> > >
> >
> > Try this one instead.
> >
> > <?xml version="1.0"?>
> > <project name="test" default="devtest" basedir=".">
> >    <target name="x">
> >      <broken-javac-task-reference/>
> >    </target>
> > </project>
> >
> > >Imagine that, it did what I said it would.
> >
> > ooops - seems like you are wrong ... again.
> >
> Who said the above project is *syntactically* invalid? The syntax looks
> correct to me. Next time read my paragraphs in full. I said
> (paraphrazing)
> "you may run them with -Dyxz... if you want to check for unknown tasks",
> so
> you can.
> Chiao,
> Jose Alberto


Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!

View raw message