ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Conor MacNeill" <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] The late stuff
Date Thu, 26 Apr 2001 21:52:07 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Donald" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] The late stuff

> At 09:26  26/4/01 -0400, Glenn McAllister wrote:
> >Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> >
> >> Let's add another week for those two entries, I'll tally the votes on
> >> Friday, May 4th.
> >>
> >> * Integration of the depends task and javac tasks
> >
> >After reading Stefan's and Jose's arguments, I'm -1 on this as well.  It
> >strikes me that <depends> is intended to make up for a lack in javac; if
> >other compilers manage dependancy checking well on their own, why should
> >we attempt to fix something that isn't necessarily broken with every
> >invocation of the compiler by default?
> actually *no* compiler does it (reverse dependency checking) - most are
> still broken but none of them intend to provide this functionality so
> of this feature does not mean they are broken.

Yes, this is true. <depend> does more than Jikes does with its depend type
features (+f option IIRC). When you compile a class, Jikes will make sure
that any classes that it depends on are up to date. It does nothing about
classes which depend on the class being compiled.

Currently I run <depend> before every <javac> element. I don't find it that

So, I am +1 on integration, certainly making it optional. If it remains
separate, and that seems likely, then perhaps it should be made a core task
rather than being optional. It has no non-JDK dependencies.


View raw message