DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18506>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18506 Determine projecthelp non-main targets from prefix in target name ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-03-31 09:36 ------- Heh, just learned that the "-" prefix was a trick. Will this continue to be supported in future releases? You shouldn't have said "It's for your own good."... :) As a counter argument, differentiating entry points and describing targets are two logically separate tasks. It's not immediately obvious to a new user that adding a description marks a target as an entry point since why wouldn't you want to add descriptions to helper targets as well? It would seem preferable instead to have a way to explicitly define an entry point or helper target that is not associated with descriptions. I would expect most entry point target names to be chosen such that they are completely obvious in terms of what they do, even in a years time. Those that are more complicated would have descriptions. Borrowing an example from Java Development with Ant, starting p.350: XML comment says "Default starting point", no description... <target name="main" depends="ear"/> I might have renamed clean to clean-all and would have removed the description. I would have renamed build-db to build-sample-db I would have removed the description from middlegen, xdoclet, compile, ejb-jar, and ear I don't see how the descriptions added value at all. I don't see how this is different from using comments to make up for bad identifier names. We want clear, understandable, and maintainable build files which is not equivalent to descriptions on every entry point.
