Lee Daniel Crocker wrote: > > "Make" itself is not very well-suited to Java, but _something_ like > it is required, because in any reasonable sized project (including > this one), compiling source is only one tiny part of the tasks that > need build control. One also has to build documents, distributions, > source control/versioning tasks, etc.
Exactly. There needs to be some way to centrally organize all of this. (Yes, I know that Freenet is about decentralization. :) ) Plus I really think we shouldn't rely on the java compiler to do incremental compilitions. My JDK 1.1 compiler does a pretty crappy job of this, and KJC doesn't do this at all, according to Oscar. (And always recompiling everything really suxx !) You're probably right that make is not particularly tailored towards Java's needs, but on the other hand it's already installed on almoust every system (excapt M$ boxes, that is) and Makefiles are very flexible when it comes to generating rules on the fly. That's just why I originally chose to write a Makefile - I'm fine with changing towards another utility if it's easy to install (!) and use. > I personally like Apache's "ant" tool, even though it's fairly new > and still in development (though that's actually one thing I like-- > its code is small and simple and easy to add features to). It is > good at doing portability tasks like converting newlines in files, > executing OS-specific tasks, etc., and it does take advantage of > Javac's ability to do its own dependency checking. As long as it doesn't _rely_ on javac's dependency checking, that doesn't sound too bad. For what platforms is it available ? Could you elaborate on the "OS-specific taks" ? Bye, Philipp _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
