"Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
> >
> > I understand. But the freedom you have with specification of the
> > external/override properties via the build.xml is nice, I think.
> >
>
> It does exactly the same thing. All we are doing is changing the name.
LOL.
I understand that. What I meant was since we can specify it easily and
clearly in the build.xml, the name 'build.properties' is a nice, clear,
expressive-of-purpose name, rather than .ant.properties, which novice
unix users might have trouble finding, and the Windows pointy-clicky
crowd can't create :)
>
> > Wouldn't we pickup the users default .ant.properties anyway?
> >
>
> I have not looked at the Ant source code, but my understanding is that
> this is not implicit -- you have to declare it in your build.xml file if
> you want this.
>
So there's nothing magic about 'ant.properties' other than
convention... certainly someone thought that it would be useful to
change the name, I suppose, or the feature wouldn't be in there...
I don't care. I like the technique - used it in my personal beanutils
setup - am indifferent to the name.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
