This gets back to my issue (I know you've already decided against it, relax, the truth will set us all free.)
The mutual exclusivity of the properties do-target1, do-target2 and do-target3 is your responsibility as the programmer. Now maybe we can write an optional ANT task ... Cheers Jay Walters -----Original Message----- From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 9:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Expanding ${} constructs for all attributes At 09:04 13/12/00 -0500, Rousseau, John wrote: >We have a bunch of stand-alone commands we create around our main >product. Not all of these commands are built/supported on all >platforms (it's native code). What I want to do is have a >targets.xml file with build rules for all targets. I then want a >master build.xml file for each platform that sets ${build.targets} >appropriately for that platform, and calls <ant> on the targets >file. The targets file main <target> then depends on >${build.targets}. This is a serious lack of functionality when >compared to make. nope you can do that fine in vanilla ant now. ie add this into file <target name="do-targets" depends="target1, target2 target 3" /> <target name="target1" if="do-target1" /> <target name="target2" if="do-target2" /> <target name="target3" if="do-target3" /> then call that file either setting or not setting the respective properties do-target1, do-target2, do-target3. Much easier to comprehend IMHO and easier to read/maintain. Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "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 | *-----------------------------------------------------*
