On 04/18/2012 12:46 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > From: "Adam Heath" <doo...@brainfood.com> >> On 04/18/2012 12:28 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>> On Apr 18, 2012, at 7:20 PM, Adam Heath wrote: >>> >>>> ps: I am going to switch <if> in ant *back* to javascript, *away* >>>> from >>>> ant-contrib. The latter is significantly slower when using a system >>>> installed ant. >>> >>> No please, don't do that.
You didn't give a reason as to why I shouldn't switch back. If it's because of things not working(at all), then list those problems. I've already discovered some cases of embedded jar paths in the build.xml files that are out-of-date(I can't do cd framework/base; ../../ant tests-cobertura, but using the system-ant does work(once I fix the broken paths). >> I've pointed out a problem, and I have a solution. Don't just respond >> saying don't do that, without a reason. That isn't enough to stop me. >> >> ant-contrib If-ant.js >> (system-ant) >> Apache Ant version 1.8.0 compiled on March 11 2010 >> time ant clean 18.131s 8.291s >> time ant build 44.072s 34.749s >> time ant build 20.228s 10.559s >> time ant clean 18.222s 8.490s >> (local-ant) >> Apache Ant(TM) version 1.8.3 compiled on February 26 2012 >> time ./ant clean 3.575s 3.218s >> time ./ant build 28.985s 28.909s >> time ./ant build 5.486s 5.232s >> time ./ant clean 3.876s 3.378s >> >> The first ant clean is run when the system is already cleaned. The >> second ant build is also run when everything is already built. It's a >> way to test what happens when nothing is done. > >> first ant clean > ie with (system-ant)? The first 4 runs are with the system ant. The second 4 are with the local ant. notice the './' on the second set. That's the clue. >> second ant build > ie with (local-ant)? > > I don't see much diff with (local-ant). why not using the embedded ant? They are all slightly slower. And that's not noise, it was consistent in my runs.
