> >I'm sorry to hear that, I've found it to adhear to the Java
> Language Spec
> >better, but never seen problems.
> >
>
> If it adheres to the specs so well, why does it produce class
> files that
> are incompatible with
> JPDA?
Language spec, plus the JDPA came out before the project went dormant.
> I don't understand your point. You admit that what I say is
> true and then
> you reiterate that jikes dependency checking "works well."
> Hell, I could
> simply recompile every single file in my project everytime I
> rebuild the
> project and that would "work well" too.
No +F doesn't recompile every file. You point it at the top level class and
it follows the dependancies all the way down and recompiles those that need
it, like make with the Makefile being the source code.
> Further, everytime these discussions come up, this issue is
> always avoided
> by proponents of using jikes-generated dependency rules in a makefile,
> namely that this causes TWO DIFFERENT PROGRAMS TO DO
> DEPENDENCY CHECKING
> CONCURRENTLY AND NEITHER IS AWARE OF THE OTHER SO THAT FILES
> GET REBUILT
> MORE TIMES THAN IS NECESSARY. This is not WORKING WELL to my mind. It
As I said, I use +F and don't use make. I agree that generating makefile
dependancies from jikes and then using make is pretty worthless.
> I don't use imports. I put a dummy field in the CompileMaster
> for every
> class in the package (see my other postings on this thread
> for an example
> of a CompileMaster). That seems to work just fine. I've tried
> it and all
> out-of-date classes get rebuilt, even classes that have indirect
> dependencies on each other.
This is something I had not tried. I'm glad someone has actually had time
to test some different solutions and come up with this. Thank you.
