Shaw, Gerry wrote:
>Attached is an example project that simulates a project with 2 libraries
>with 2 examples. From inspection you can see how this design would scale
>well to a much larger example. This is the basis for the design.
>
>The key to this design is the a modified <include> task. The modification
>does two things:
>
>1. It removes the build exception if you do a recursive include and simply
>ignores it without doing the include (something like an include once).
>
>
Thats a good idea. Much nicer. Kind of like a header include guard in C.
>2. When tasks are executed in the included build files the base directory
>changes to be where the build file is located. So if you have a <csc> task
>in an included build file the path to the source files should be relative to
>the build file. Currently the path needs to be relative to the buildfile
>doing the including.
>
>
Can we take a poll on what peoples feelings are on this. My initial idea
for the include task was that it pull in an included file as if that
included file was part of the main file ( ie keeping the same base
directory ). and that for recursive builds you'd use the <nant> task to
call child builds and they would have basedir the same as that child
build file. I'm not sure which is the best way which is why I want to
see what other people think.
with the new way you could do:
<!-- included file in c:\foo -->
<property name="somepath" value="."/>
...
...
<target name="included" >
<csc target="library" debug="true" output="./bin/somelib.dll">
<sources basedir="${somepath}">
<includes name="*.cs"/>
</sources>
</csc>
</target>
</project>
main build file in c:\bar -->
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<project name="foo" default="test">
...
<call target="included"/>
<csc target="library" debug="true" output="./bin/someotherlib.dll">
<sources basedir="${somepath}">
<includes name="*.cs"/>
</sources>
</csc>
...
</project>.
and the included target will execute in the same basedir as the included
file and ${somepath} will expand to c:\foo. However the property that
gets pulled in "somepath" will be expanded in the context of the main
build file ( to c:\bar ). This could lead to some unexpected behaviour
and cause some hard to track down bugs. Its a contrived example I know.
I just want to make sure we get this right.
I agree with Gerry that we should get this right and make that the only
way and not have an option for it. That would just make it even more
confusing.
Ian
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Nant-developers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
