----- Message d'origine ----- De : "Jose Alberto Fernandez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> À : "Ant Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Envoyé : jeudi 9 octobre 2003 15:30 Objet : RE: failonerror; general solution
>Very interesting point of view. thanks ;)) >I see what you are saying, but I do not think that one should >try to force people to do things one way (the way someone likes) >by just vetoeing all other ways, which may be more convinient to others. not vetoing, but as you know, many users do not read "the fucking manual" ... as I did before my deep entrance in Ant utilisation. So if you put the necessary stuff in your core, will you search to understand a quite difficult philosophy and method ? no, i do not think so. >Changing to the topic of java-logic vs. task-logic in buildfiles, >it all depends whether you want/like/need hard binding or loose >binding in your builds. By that I mean, when using java you are hiding >what really goes on in a backbox, that must be maintained independently. >If you need to change the way the build works, you may finish needing >completely diferent tasks that need to be rewritten in java. >I prefer not to go to java, if I can. We have done several reorganizations >of our deployment strategies which required completely different >ways to perform the build, and there was no java changes involved. This is exactly why I speak of ANT 1.6 revolution : macro and preset ! These task are wonderfull and many problem will be solvable without Java developpement. >Now my only point is that just because some people prefer deepbinding >it does not mean that loosebinding is wrong. It is just a different >way of doing things. And I do not think one is worst than the other. I do not say it is wrong, but it is not the official way. As you could see, when i answer to a user request (i do not have lot of time to do :( ), i propose everytime two way : an "official" point of view and a quick solution (like foreach). I think (but it's my opinion) than ant should not provide stuff for unofficial way, because you risk to mix the image. >Jose Alberto Emmanuel > -----Original Message----- > From: Emmanuel Feller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 October 2003 13:29 > To: Ant Developers List > Subject: Re: failonerror; general solution > > > I am not saying that everyone should redesign wheel because > ant is not script ... > I was like you tired of the scripting tabu, but i review my > opinion when i had to do my first very complex build file. > The scripting way was not the description way and i found a > wall when i developped the scripting way, because i miss > description details in my process. > > I am saying that : > You should not take a solution because it exists but because > you need really it. I might that every project are differents > and that task are the basics element of construction game. > Now your project drive the way you build, you should take > care on patterns but not apply a solution because marked as > THE solution. > > My builds are less complex still I developpe my own task, > because i use all basic stuff in my context. > > So you may developp a script with foreach, if, and every > task. It will be long and may be not efficicent. > > Me I developp a task that verify if uptodate, compile, jar > and javadoc my basic element of project. > It is only a wrapper on ant core task ... no redeveloppement > of basic things but value added things. > And after i have a task that ask my scm for modules names > and location and call the previous task. > (I am migrating my task within macro). > > This is one of my targets. My build file are quite short > (around 2000 lines with comments), and are simple to maintain. > > I took time to understand (around 1year) but now i think > that i am efficient on build process. > Newbies may not have abstraction point of view if we provide > the scripting features. Only my opinion, Emmanuel > ----- Message d'origine ----- > De : "Jose Alberto Fernandez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > À : "Ant Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Envoyé : jeudi 9 octobre 2003 14:03 > Objet : RE: failonerror; general solution > > > So are you saying that instead of having access to generic > things in ANT that anyone can use, we should prefer having > every user defining it own little dialect with his own little > tasks for minor things that everybody needs. (I.e., I do not > think anybody denies the need for doing things conditionally > on the build). > > I find this very strange. > > I have my own tasks too, but this are tasks for our inhouse > code generator and such which are specific to our environment > (so I am not afraid to define them), I also have my own > <forall/> tasks which works diferent than the <foreach/> of > antcontrib. But why you want every user to reinvent <if>, > etc. It makes no sense to me. (At the end we get enhancement > request after enhancement request, for ways of doing things > that can be done using this simple tasks, efficiently. > > I do not think the aim of ANT is to require people to write > java code for every other thing they need in their build. The > point of ANT and ANTLIB in particular is to provide reusable > tasks that anyone can use. If you do not like a certain group > of tasks, well do not use them, but that does not mean > vetoeing anyone else to use them. > > And as I have said several times now, I am not asking for > them > to be added to core, I an just asking them to be shippen as > a > useful antlib that people can use in their builds, if they want. > > Jose Alberto > PS: I am so tired of the "ANT should not be a scripting > language" tabu when in reality it is, just like MAKE or any > other description language that gets executed. ANT is not a > procedural language, that I agree, but it is a script. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
