ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: Vetoes are void? was Re: [VOTE] target-less build files - counting results
Date Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:46:07 GMT

Peter Donald wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 20:19, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>>On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Peter Donald <> 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         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message