On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
> From: "Peter Donald" <donaldp@apache.org>
>
> > I am still fairly sure I don't like anton (or javaon) style functionality at
> > all. Basically it amounts to limited version of foreach where only one var
> > can change each iteration. I can't see how either can lead to good build
> > practices - anyone care to enlighten me ?
> >
>
> In the case of <javaon> I agree with your argument (although there is still the
issue of
> having allowed <execon> as part of ANT in the first place) those asking for <javaon>,
> I think are just asking for symmetry on the tasks provided by ANT.
>
> With respect to <ant> (or <anton>) fileset functionality I disagree with
your assesment.
> The question is whether the best practice is to have to modify a main-buildfile everytime
> a new subproject is added, or this can be done by simply installing the subproject in
the
> right location in the source tree.
>
> For example in a project like tasklibs where you may have a large amount of quasi-independent
> subproject may be a good example. Shall each library be build only independently? shall
there be
> a main-build that needs to be modified every time a new taglib is added? or shall the
main build
> simply pickup the new taglibs as they are added. Different build shops may want to be
> able to use different policies on this regard and I do not see why one should be concidered
> better or worst than any other. It is a question about how much centralized control a
shop
> wants to have of the build-process across an organization.
>
I totally agree with you .. almost every larger project is divided into
several more or less independent subprojects.
I think, if the interface (in terms of xml) of my implementation is ok,
someone should commit it to the repository. So that people can test it (I
did already).
Holger
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
|