Stefan Bodewig wrote: > If you load these properties inside the target, the name already is > predetermined, if you do so in a common target the others depend upon, > you could do something like > > <target name="PROD"> > <antcall target="real-target"> > <param name="target.name" value="PROD" /> > </antcall> > </target> > > and similar for uat or dev. > > > I ended up using an explicit property, eg 'ant -Dtarget.name=PROD' > > This is the way I would go, yes. But then again, I prefer things to > be explicit 8-)
Why is it such a huge deal and so much resistance to just give the build file access to the current target?? The response to such queries always gets a response like: "give us a valid use case for doing this" instead of a justification for NOT doing it currently. Really, please give me an INVALID use case for this! Why would this be harmful? - Drew -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
