At 10:53 23/4/01 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> * provide a way to define the order in which targets a given target >> depends upon get executed. >> >> [veto by Peter Donald] > >I'd like to challenge that veto, Pete.
consider it lifted then ;) It was more a theoretical rather than practical desire - motivated by JDDs idea of distributed builds which was -1'ed anyways... >What's your proposal to solve the use case of beanutils' all target? ><http://jakarta.apache.org/cvsweb/index.cgi/~checkout~/jakarta-commons/bean utils/build.xml?rev=1.8&content-type=text/plain> > >The use case is simple, make sure we do a "clean" build. > >As current Ant will execute targets that don't depend on each other in >left-to-right order, there may be quite a few build system that rely >on this. We need some way to keep this feature, or some equivalent >functionality. Agreed - we will have this semantic in ant-call anyway (it is needed badly). I would prefer if we only had one way to do it but it is not critical enough to make an issue of it - I am sure a slight duplicity won't lead to perl ;) 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 | *-----------------------------------------------------*
