In my opinion, it would be a "good thing" if at some point the <solution> task did very little work itself. Instead it should dynamically determine which of the existing tasks should be called and then call them (instead of calling csc.exe directly, for example). This would allow the solution task to leverage all of the nice features of the existing tasks including handling multiple frameworks, etc.
-----Original Message----- From: Matthew Mastracci [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 12:22 AM To: Ian MacLean Cc: James C. Papp; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [nant-dev] RE: RE: [Fwd: Ready to tackle next release] Oh - I hadn't realized that the CompilerBase was doing the same sort of hackery. In that case, I guess we should probably be sharing the delicate code between the two places. It might be better to move all of the code into the CompilerBase class and use it from there in the Solution task. Thanks for the clarification, Matt. Ian MacLean wrote: > Matthew Mastracci wrote: > >> Please let me know if I'm totally out to lunch on this one- I'm >> guessing that this resx issue you are describing is a problem with >> the <solution> task. >> >> > I think he's talking about Compilerbase.cs. The regular compiler tasks > do the same thing as solution task wrt determining correct namespace > prefix. Its the same problem just in a different place. > Ian > >> I haven't really been in the code there lately, but checking in CVS, >> it looks as if the resource-compiling functionality is operating >> correctly (with the exception of the not-so-smart regex's you >> mentioned in your note). I can't see how more than one regex could >> be run on a single file. Are you running with an older version, or >> does CVS exhibit the problems you are seeing? >> >> Also with regards to "The biggest problem is that NAnt assumes the >> filename (of the source file) is the name of the class that the RESX >> should be associated too"- we should (according to the latest code) >> be parsing the files to determine the correct namespace/filename of >> the final .resource file. Resources should never be named to match >> their dependent files. Are you perhaps referring to .resx files that >> are not associated with any .cs or .vb files? I could see that there >> could be a problem there, but it seems to match VS.NET's behaviour in >> all of my tests. >> >> Can you please elaborate on #2 and #3 more? Again, if you're not >> talking about what I think you are, let me know, and I apologize in >> advance. :) >> >> Thanks, >> Matt. >> >> On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 21:21, Ian MacLean wrote: >> >> >>> James, >>> We'd love to see your patches. The resx issues was a known one - if >>> your solution is cleaner and more accurate then obviously thats the >>> way to go. >>> Post patches here and they will be reviewed. >>> Ian >>> >>> >>> >>>> RE: [Fwd: Ready to tackle next release] If you are getting ready >>>> for a new release, I have a bunch of patches I would love to see >>>> added to NAnt. I would be willing to work with everyone as much as >>>> needed, to see that the changes make it into the release; or some >>>> variation of them - that is, if they are accepted. >>>> >>>> Here is a run down of our current changes to NAnt: >>>> I have mentioned this one previously; and it involves adding an >>>> "options" property to CompilerBase.cs. The original post had no >>>> subject and came out garbled (sorry about that), though I have >>>> filed it under RFE "[811931] - Adding an "options" property to >>>> CompilerBase.cs", where you can read about the change in more detail. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Another change we made was to allow passing of "parameters" as >>>> properties to other NAnt scripts via the "nant" task. This works >>>> really well and avoids having to using the "inheritall" attribute >>>> (which can be overkill - particularly if you have scripts that call >>>> themselves externally...). You can think of this feature as adding >>>> support for the "-D:" options of nant.exe >>>> >>>> The syntax looks like this: >>>> >>>> <nant buildfile="somefile" inheritall="false" target="sometarget"> >>>> <defines> >>>> <property name="buildtarget" value="${script.build.target}" /> >>>> <property name="copytarget" value="${script.copy.target}" /> >>>> </defines> </nant> >>>> >>>> The "defines" are created as properties and accessible only from >>>> the invoked NAnt script as if they were passed with "-D:". Their >>>> values are evaluated at the time just before the new script is >>>> invoked. Note: You can still use the "inheritall" attribute as >>>> well, though anything defined will override anything inherited if >>>> there is a name collision. The patch for this change is >>>> straightforward and simple. The only part left to do is handling >>>> all the NAnt location stuff with properties, which I am not too >>>> sure about (currently, I set this to unknown), though I'm sure >>>> someone on the list can enlighten me. >>>> >>>> Our next change is the most extensive but it fixes a long >>>> out-standing issue with NAnt. Basically, we did a rewrite on how >>>> NAnt handles RESX files. Currently NAnt has the following problems: >>>> >>>> 1.) The regular expressions for determining the namespace are >>>> poor and are easily confused by comments (that have the word >>>> namespace in them, for example "// is located in the foo namespace"). >>>> 2.) The regular expressions used by different languages are >>>> executed on all the source files. For example, when compiling a >>>> "*.cs" file the regular expressions for capitalized namespace >>>> lookup (I guess for VB) is executed even when it should not; this >>>> is bad, as it picks up false positives and increase the chance of >>>> error. >>>> 3.) The biggest problem is that NAnt assumes the filename (of >>>> the source file) is the name of the class that the RESX should be >>>> associated too. This issue killed our use of NAnt (until we fixed >>>> it), as our filenames do not match the "Form" class within them; >>>> Visual Studio does not have a problem with this. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> It would be great to see NUnit 2.1 plugged in. I'd also like to >>>>> see 1.1 as the default. Ian - do you think it would be possible to >>>>> get the ReplaceTask into the core if I can make it more robust? >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------- >>>>> - Mitch Denny >>>>> - [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> - http://www.monash.net >>>>> - +61 (414) 610141 >>>>> - >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Ian MacLean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 03, >>>>>> 2003 2:31 PM >>>>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> Subject: [nant-dev] [Fwd: Ready to tackle next release] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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 >>> >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------------------------------- 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
