Peter Donald wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 20:19, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Peter Donald <peter@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>So far I have have vetoed the change and given reasons which other
>>>people have supported.
>>
>>I've cited all reasons as far as I can tell. These reasons are
>>reasons against top-level tasks, not against target-less builds.
>
>
> I have no problem with top level tasks and I have never said I did as far as I
> recall. I would prefer that only declarators were part of top level but as
> that is nearly impossible to implement due to ants wonderful codebase I have
> no problem with making any task a top level task.
>
>
>>You can not honestly claim that my example (b) is cleaner, clearer,
>>easier to understand or makes the learning curve smoother than my
>>example (a).
>
>
> I can claim that
>
> <project>
> <target name="main">
> <echo>Hello world</echo>
> </target>
> </project>
>
> is cleaner, clearer, easier to understand ... yada yada.
>
> It follows our current model where work is described by targets and is
> requires very little effort to migrate into a fully fledged, well modularised
> build file.
>
> Where I don't think targetless build files do the same. Stephane seems to
> agree with me thus my -1 is not invalid.
Listen guys, if we follow the analogy with Java classes, what Peter says
make perfect sense.
Having targetless buildfiles is like having methodless classes with only
a static part... I don't know if it's possible in java, but who would
ever use it?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
|