ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Siberski, Wolf" <Wolf.Siber...@tui.de>
Subject RE: [PATCH] Suggestion for new commandline switch -targets
Date Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:35:39 GMT
If you want to mark targets as 'end-user' targets,
you should explicitly mark them.
Marking the tasks you don't want to show
is counter-intuitive and error-prone
(you may forget to mark a 'private' target,
or you may not update your existing build files).

As a plus, with KC's approach you could
only publish targets by adding an explanation
to them. :-)

What are the advantages of the 'private' flag?

Wolf


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcel Schutte [mailto:marcel@schutte.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 3:20 PM
> To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Suggestion for new commandline switch -targets
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Both Conor and KC seem to be not so keen on the 'private' 
> flag for targets.
> What are your objections?
> 
> I've tried my patch on ant's own build.xml with this result:
> 
> Buildfile: build.xml
> Targets:
>  -install
>  -dist-tgz
>  -dist
>  -dist-zip
>  -compile
>  -fullinstall
>  -get.snapshot
>  -javadocs
>  -check_for_optional_packages
>  -total-clean
>  -bootstrap
>  -main
>  -jar
>  -prepare
>  -compiletests
>  -clean
>  -make.snapshot
>  -runtests
> 
> I definitely miss a description for each target but it would 
> also be very
> useful if something like 'check_for_optional_packages' was 
> filtered out
> 
> Regards,
> Marcel Schutte
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: KC Baltz [mailto:KBaltz@responsenetworks.com]
> > Sent: maandag 14 augustus 2000 15:06
> > To: 'ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org'
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Suggestion for new commandline switch -targets
> >
> >
> > I tend to agree that a 'private' tag could be misconstrued 
> as doing more
> > than just hiding a task from commandline invocation.    I 
> think that a
> > -targets or -printtargets would be useful as long as it's 
> only intended to
> > refresh your memory as to what targets are contained in 
> your buildfile.  I
> > like the idea of a <description>, but perhaps it should be 
> an optional
> > attribute of the <target> tag.
> >
> > K.C. Baltz
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Conor MacNeill [mailto:conor@m64.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 8:57 AM
> > > To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Suggestion for new commandline 
> switch -targets
> > >
> > >
> > > Tim,
> > >
> > > > A thought I had at the time of the <help> conversation hooks up
> > > > nicely here.
> > > > Why not simply have an optional nested element for <target>
> > > > called <description>
> > > > or something like that, which provided verbiage of what the
> > > task does, who
> > > > should use it etc.  Then the proposed 'ant -targets' could print
> > > > descriptions
> > > > along with the list of targets. For most people, I *hope*, this
> > > > would simply be
> > > > an exercise of moving text from some XML comments into a defined
> > > > element....
> > >
> > > Agreed. Pretty much agrees with what I suggested, I think. My
> > > point was that
> > > a list of targets, on its own lacks enough information to be
> > > useful but
> > > enough to be dangerous.
> > >
> > > I would prefer -targets therefore to be changed to support
> > > printing this
> > > help information. Perhaps -targets is no longer an
> > > appropriate option label.
> > > It should become a general project information dump, printing
> > > project level
> > > help, a list of targets, with their associated help. Perhaps
> > > -info or -docs?
> > >
> > > I am not too keen on the "private" flag for targets, though.
> > >
> > > thoughts? Marcel?
> > >
> >
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message