Jeff Turner wrote:
>
> Are these characterizations right?
>
> - If Ant isn't bundled, then there's no shell files, and build.xml and
> build.properties can be dropped in the project root, just like Makefiles.
> Nice, simple and intuitive.
Except you punted the entire issue by making people install Ant.
> - If Ant isn't bundled, then dependencies becomes a hassle.
Seems so.
> - The dependency problem can be solved by a commons/lib directory, containing
> optional.jar, junit.jar, xerces1.2.2.jar, etc. The INSTALL doc then tells
> people to drop this stuff in $ANT_HOME/lib, if it's not already there.
Maybe. I don't think we should make people drop things into what could
be part of their working environment to play with our stuff. I mean, if
you depended upon your current ant configuration for your daily work (
and you probably do...) would you want to drop arbitrary things in there
to play with some software?
> Otherwise it's back to bundling Ant, script files, "build" directories, etc,
> which would be sad.
Come on. Its so easy, and makes it so easy for users.... Is this some
urban legend? Has anyone really run into great difficulties with this?
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
