ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject RE: -emacs flag ??
Date Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:00:57 GMT
At 01:43  1/3/01 +1100, Conor MacNeill wrote:
>> From: Peter Donald []
>> >
>> >Your argument is that we should NOT provide additional information (the
>> >task producing a particular piece of output) because that affects the
>> >ability of some editors to parse the output.
>> some editors ? All editors that provide this functionality would be closer
>> to it ;)
>Maybe all editors that you use, but mine has no problems whatsoever. I
>believe you can configure emacs to handle it too.

Which editor to you use ? I actually have emacs setup to parse either
format but the Vim/*Edit users are not so lucky - they have hardwired
constraints ;)

>Depends on what you do I guess. For example, when building EJBs, the current
>ejbjar task uses task names to separate the output from the task itself and
>the ejb deployment tool invoked by the task. It is very handy for users to
>know the source of their errors. When we support multithreading it will be
>even more important to know the source of the error. Questions like "Was
>that the test harness or the server that blew up"

okay - I don't dev that sort of thing ;) 

>> Who saids you have to loose it ? You can still enable it via
>> another switch
>> ;)
>We already have a switch to make it easy to go to this "standard". Why
>change the default then?

Because the default is meant to be the most general option that is most
useful to the common person (who usually just wants a tool to build java

>> I wasn't actually going to bring this issue up to 2.0 though but somehow
>> the issue up and pounced ;) How about we keep it as is in 1.x for
>> backwards
>> compatability but maybe ant2.0 defaults to the standard?
>Nothing is set for 2.0 yet, and everything will be up for discussion.

good - another way to solve it would be ti implement that feature requested
- per-target logging control. So we could have one target with attribute 


while another would be 


Then we could have compiling targets with doc:task-prefix="false" and ejb
targets with doc:task-prefix="true". How do you like that ?



| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |

View raw message