On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I am still fairly sure I don't like anton (or javaon) style functionality > > at > > all. Basically it amounts to limited version of foreach where only one var > > can change each iteration. I can't see how either can lead to good build > > practices - anyone care to enlighten me ? > > > > In the case of <javaon> I agree with your argument (although there is still > the issue of > having allowed <execon> as part of ANT in the first place) those asking for > <javaon>, > I think are just asking for symmetry on the tasks provided by ANT. > > With respect to <ant> (or <anton>) fileset functionality I disagree with your > assesment. > The question is whether the best practice is to have to modify a > main-buildfile everytime > a new subproject is added, or this can be done by simply installing the > subproject in the > right location in the source tree. > > For example in a project like tasklibs where you may have a large amount of > quasi-independent > subproject may be a good example. Shall each library be build only > independently? shall there be > a main-build that needs to be modified every time a new taglib is added? or > shall the main build > simply pickup the new taglibs as they are added. Different build shops may > want to be > able to use different policies on this regard and I do not see why one should > be concidered > better or worst than any other. It is a question about how much centralized > control a shop > wants to have of the build-process across an organization. >
I totally agree with you .. almost every larger project is divided into several more or less independent subprojects. I think, if the interface (in terms of xml) of my implementation is ok, someone should commit it to the repository. So that people can test it (I did already). Holger -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
