>>>>> "NS" == Nico Seessle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
NS> but in these cases I think it's a bit overhead (not to mention NS> that I would not name it a target in my build to fail if NS> something is wrong) to create a number of targets just to make NS> sure everything else will work correctly in the build process? Yes, and I'm willing to fix this, either by committing your modified fail task, or by committing a <require> task or by adding a fail attribute to available - but not by committing two or even three of these options. In case you didn't follow the other threads. <require> would be the same as <available> but have an additional message attribute which would be used to throw a BuildException if the resource can not be found. Thus combining <available> and your modified <fail> into a single task - making it even more explicit. A fail attribute to available has been proposed to do the same as <require>'s message attribute - just more implicit. Stefan
