=> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 23:06:34 +1000, Peter Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> However the usecase that ant needs is executing the same set of tasks with
> different parameters. ie Repeat tasks t1 -> tn with different values for A,
> B and C properties. It is really useful when you need to repeate the set of
> operations over a large number of datasets (ie if you have 30 taglibs that
> all require same steps to generate compile and deploy etc).
OK, this feels to my ant-naive perceptions like a case of what I quoted. I'll
spit out a straw man, and tell me where I'm missing your point?
<fileset name="tld-targets">
<30 taglib names/>
</fileset>
<target t0>
<compile a big load of stuff/>
</target>
<target t1 depends="t0">
<frobtaglib>
<mytargetsref="tld-targets"/>
<!-- Frobtaglib identifies a set of source/target mappings inferred from
the target fileset. Let's say it makes .jar s -->
</frobtaglib>
</target>
<target t2 depends="t1">
<twiddletaglib/>
<mytargetsref="tld-targets"/>
<!-- And so on -->
</twiddletaglib>
</target>
The critical difference is:
(forall $Thing: T1,T2,T3)
vs.
(forall $Thing: T1)
(forall $Thing: T2)
(forall $Thing: T3)
I assert that, for any real case of T1,T2,T3 it is possible to 'phrase' the
goal in either idiom. I welcome attempts at counterexamples. The complexities
and pitfalls of the "transform sets of files" are different than those of the
"run scripts on individual files". But I bet they are in fact provably
equivalent.
...
And one of them is ant-y. The other one is anti-ant-y.
- Allen S. Rout
