On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think the only difference is that I would have one CLASSPATH that >> grows (and sometimes shrinks) over time, rather than jumping between >> projects. A matter of style. I obviously prefer my style, but my >> advise right now would be to pick one option, code it, and start using >> it, and see over time if it feels restricting/annoying. > > > Coded! :-) http://github.com/djspiewak/buildr Branch: interactive-shell > > It's worth noting that I rarely use sub-projects, so in practice my style > and yours are likely indistinguishable. I'm curious as to the opinion of > the community at large. > > Out of curiousity, in your style, you do you envision the shell task > determining the correct compile task? This task must be a pre-requisite for > `shell`. Also, the task needs to be able to locate CLASSPATH information > from somewhere. If the task isn't project-local, where does it come from?
I was thinking something like (outside of any project definition): shell.with project(...) which will use compile target and dependencies and infer the target. Assaf > > Also, open a JIRA issue for this enhancement so we can track it. > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BUILDR-234 > > Daniel >
