Well, I was not suggesting any change to what you've already done. I was just pointing out that if you want something simple (one global shell for a given project), the configuration is pretty much trivial.
alex On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected]> wrote: > Right, that's what I understood you to mean. I guess I just didn't echo it > back correctly. :-) > > Daniel > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Alex Boisvert <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Sorry, I wasn't clear. > > > > In my example, I was defining a top-level task "shell" that would be > linked > > to a project's specific shell task. > > > > That way, you could do "buildr shell" instead of "buildr myproject:shell" > > or > > "buildr myproject:shell:jirb" > > > > alex > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Oh I see, allow the task to be project local, just don't define the > > > local_task alias. That would work, but again it's not as magical. > > > > > > Daniel > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Alex Boisvert <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but I only have to do it once when I write the buildfile. > All > > > the > > > > > > times I run the shell, I don't have to cd into a specific > > directory, > > > > > > or remember the qualified task name. So if you don't need > different > > > > > > shells for different projects (in the same build), overall > there's > > > > > > much less effort setting it up this way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same could be said for the other approach. You could easily > have, > > > > > > > > task 'shell' => 'myproject:shell:jirb' > > > > > > > > in your project and be done with it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, on a syntactic note, Lispers would know the "shell" much better > > as > > > a > > > > > REPL. What's the preferred terminology? I like shell because it's > > > short > > > > > and relatively easy to understand, but maybe I'm the minority. If > > > > someone > > > > > is expecting the interactive language shell to be called a "REPL", > > then > > > > > they > > > > > would probably expect `buildr shell` to be some sort of interactive > > > > command > > > > > interface to Buildr itself (allowing you to run tasks). Does this > > seem > > > > > like > > > > > a potential problem or should we not fret over it? > > > > > > > > > > > > I think "shell" is the more common and broader name. And as shown > > > above, > > > > it's easy to create an alias if you insist on a specific name. > > > > > > > > alex > > > > > > > > > >
