----- Original Message ----- From: "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Listen guys, if we follow the analogy with Java classes, what Peter says > make perfect sense.
> Having targetless buildfiles is like having methodless classes with only > a static part... I don't know if it's possible in java, but who would > ever use it? It is very much possible in Java to have just a static part and nothing else. Just because it doesn't have a "main" method doesn't mean that the class's static initializers cannot be run. In fact you don't even need to instantiate the class for its static initializers to run. The default class loader will run the static initializers if you just do Class.forName(). Java doesn't mandate that every class must have a main method. Java does not mandate that every class must have at least a method. I fail to understand why we are trying to draw an analogy between Java - a full fledged language - and Ant. If we start going that route, one can start drawing analogies between numerous other things like constants and variables in Java, anonymous classes, package names... Well, you get the idea ;-) Cheers, Magesh ************************************************* * Committee: Individuals who can do nothing * * individually and sit to decide that nothing * * can be done together. * ************************************************* -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
