Overall, I'm +1 on Ant (-0.5 on Maven), and +0 to a single source tree and other consolidations / clarifications / improvements that'll make it easier to work with Tomcat's source...
Yoav On 2/28/06, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Costin Manolache wrote: > > Why would you want to change ant ??? > > I don't, I am asking questions. > > > Re. source folders versus modules - we can have both of them, it's not > > exclusive. > > Single source tree makes it easy to navigate, more IDE-friendly, etc. > > The build file can compile as many modules as needed - either by compiling a > > subset of the tree, or by compiling the entire tree and generating > > several modules. > > Yes, I know. > > > IMO it is a bad practice to scatter sources around without very good reason. > > JDK sources don't seem to be scattered in modules like 'io', 'net', > > but in packages, > > and modules for platform-specific stuff. > > > > Having a single source tree would also greatly simplify the ant file, > > and with eclipse > > it can completely skip the compilation task ( i.e. if the ant file > > uses the same build/classes > > dir as eclipse, it'll detect the already-compiled classes and just > > create the jars, while > > eclipse can keep the source updated on save ). > > Obviously, the build script would be far far simpler. Personally, I am > also in favor of a single source tree, since it's simply much easier to > work with. > > Rémy > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Yoav Shapira Senior Architect Nimalex LLC 1 Mifflin Place, Suite 310 Cambridge, MA, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
