ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jon Tirsén <>
Subject RE: [PATCH] Dynamic target
Date Fri, 03 Nov 2000 00:54:08 GMT
Yes! The ability to specify targets as a pattern is the proper
generalization/formalization of Jonas' proposal. And since make has had that
for a RLTN (Really Long Time Now ;) it's a pretty proven feature. That is an
extremely useful tool for build-system-generalization, and probably what I
miss most from make.

So, was it a target-pattern war or anything? I'm pretty new to this list.
What was the reason for not having target-patterns? I'm extremely +1 for

<target match="*" property="" ....>
is not the implementation of what Jonas proposed, basically the
"" magic property of Jonas is the same as the $< magic
property of make.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jose Alberto Fernandez []
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 3:02 PM
To: ''
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Dynamic target

My concern here is how do you plan to dealt with multiple targets?
If I do:

  ant unk1 unk2 unk3

what Jonas proposed will not work since the property will only get one value
(not mutable).

I do not have a solution for the problem either.

How does this work if I have:

  <target name="known1" depends="unknown2" />

would the execution of known1 cause the execution of the dynamic target
corresponding to "unknown2"?.

If this does not work, then I think we only have a cluge. Any solid solution
should work consistently independently of the situation.

BTW, At some point I proposed having "template" targets. Something like:

  <target match="unk*" property=""..... />

which matches any target that starts with "unk". If we add to this some
rules about priorities based on how good the match is, we can get something
more general and better formulated than the dynamic target concept.

In particular, the dynamic target is nothing else than:

  <target match="*" property="" ....>

still there is the issue of what is the scope for ""
if the rule applies again in a dependence, what should happen?
Do we need a separate concept for keeping track of the actual target name?
 "${}" could mean the actual name of the current target, which in the
case of a matching target means the actual value matched. So no "property"
attribute required.


Jose Alberto

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Tirsén []
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 12:05 PM
> To:
> Subject: SV: [PATCH] Dynamic target
> I'm not sure that the feature is 100% bad. I think that a
> feature of that
> kind in combination with the script-task would make much more complex
> behaviour in a build-system possible. It would for example be
> a very good
> tool for generalizing build-files to a higher degree.
> I do agree upon that the patch is to magic/implicit in it's current
> manifestation. But I do see the use of such a feature in a
> very advanced
> ant-build-implementation. (Such as my own. :-)
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: Conor MacNeill []
> Skickat: den 2 november 2000 06:29
> Till:
> Ämne: RE: [PATCH] Dynamic target
> Jonas,
> I agree with Stefan. This is too implicit for my liking.
> Specially named
> targets are not a good idea, IMHO. If you did want to have
> this sort of
> specific meaning, (and I question whether that is the case, anyway), I
> think it would require a different element name such as <dynamic>.
> So for now, I'm -1 on this patch.
> Conor

View raw message