Ok so from what I gather then I am using them the way you are too... It
just felt rather strange and like ANT was trying to move toward a scripting
language and not XML tags...
here is an simplified example of what I was talking about with the
functions:
<antcall target="pt.ci">
<param name="pt.fileName" value="Myclass.class"/>
</antcall>
<antcall target="pt.ci">
<param name="pt.fileName" value="Aclass.class"/>
</antcall>
<target name="pt.ci">
<exec executable="pt">
<arg line="ci -nc ${pt.fileName}"/>
</exec>
</target>
Well if that is the case of it I will continue working to get ant Build
files compiling each package in my java source tree. Right now there is
two separate trees one for classes and one for code and they are both in a
non standard version of clear case :P But I am going to attempt a total
ANT solution.
Last question for today:
Here is the current manual step process I have to follow:
1.) compile the .class file to the proper sub branch of the class only
package tree in the VOB (clearcase)
2.a) make a new element using non standard tools if it does not exist
2.b) if it does exist, check out the file using the non standard tools
3) check in the .class file to the VOB (clearcase) using the non standard
tools
would you think having a build file in each package subtree would be wise?
Then having the build files in the packages that had sub packages be able
to recursively call the build packages in those sub packages to be able to
compile the files properly, since I have to use nonstandard clearcase
commands. Or would it be better to allow a more automated way with using
the reg expression **/*.java to just grab the files and send them over? I
wondered if anyone has run across the same issues before in their project
development.
I was thinking that I would make a unique entry to the package build file
for that package level classes to allow one to compile the class in
specific or all classes. But in either case it would seem I am using a non
standard compile tree, as well as a non standard set of the clear case
tools, so making a unique entry would be required...?
just throwing around some ideas...
Thanks again,
-Ben
Don Taylor wrote:
> Only to check if a property exists. Your tags are fine, they'll make
> those if attributes readable!
>
> --- Benjamin Russell Stocum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In the Target tag, does the "if" attribute allow you to have a logic
> > expression, or does it just allow one to check to see if a "property"
> > exists? Can I have a statement like
> >
> > <target name="someTarget" if="item.exists == 2">
> > ...
> > ...
> > </target>
> >
> > I am currently using the tags as functions, is there a better way to
> > do
> > this? And when do you know you should be creating your own tags?
> > Like
> > for example I set a property if the file exists:
> >
> > <target name="fileExists">
> > <available file="${fileName}" property="${fileName}.exists"/>
> > </target>
> >
> >
> > Am I doing too much? I have lots of tags like this one... Is this the
> > proper way to construct the tags?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Ben
> > > begin:vcard
> > n:Stocum;Ben
> > tel;home:442-1316
> > tel;work:383-3510
> > x-mozilla-html:FALSE
> > url:http://www.paychex.com
> > org:Paychex, Inc;Enterprise Development
> > adr:;;911 Panorama Trail S.;Rochester;NY;14625-2396;
> > version:2.1
> > email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > title:Developer Lv 1
> > fn:Ben Stocum
> > end:vcard
> >
>
> =====
> Don
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
begin:vcard
n:Stocum;Ben
tel;home:442-1316
tel;work:383-3510
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.paychex.com
org:Paychex, Inc;Enterprise Development
adr:;;911 Panorama Trail S.;Rochester;NY;14625-2396;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Developer Lv 1
fn:Ben Stocum
end:vcard
