I'd actually argue for this being the default method of operation, and the fallback being to try and locate the jars the way it is currently done.
Reasoning: people have to change their build.xml anyways to include in the new bootstrap task, so adding an extra dir parameter will be very easy/intuitive, whereas adding a new shell script is less trivial and IMHO is a HUGE change in the way one expects ant to work. On 29/4/02 6:33 pm, "Ara Abrahamian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 but we should provide a default anyway, casual user should not have > to always specify it, but can override it. > > Ara. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:xdoclet-devel- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Aslak Helles�y >> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 5:08 PM >> To: Hani Suleiman >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [Xdoclet-devel] RE: [Xdoclet-user] Xdoclet cvs issues >> >> First, Bootstrapper is gone (on the MODULE_REFACTROING_BRANCH). >> I like your idea. What if we pass in an array of File objects to >> ModuleFinder.findModules(File[] moduleDirs)? >> This would default to the location of ant.jar, but can be overridden > in >> build.xml with a dirset (new Ant feature I think). >> >> You would get something like this: >> >> <ejbdoclet ...> >> <!-- optional if module jars are in a different place than ant.jar > --> >> <moduledirs> >> <include name="${standard.modules.dir}"/> >> <include name="${myown.modules.dir}"/> >> </moduledirs> >> >> ... >> >> <ejbdoclet> >> >> What do you others think? >> >> /Aslak >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: www-data [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hani > Suleiman >>> Sent: 29. april 2002 14:22 >>> To: Aslak Hellesoy >>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: RE: [Xdoclet-user] Xdoclet cvs issues >>> >>> >>> I'll try and find the time to sort out the ant issue, by talking to >>> them/submitting a patch or whatever. However, I still think the way > that >>> xdoclet has been changed is not an ideal design. >>> >>> Why not, for example, allow for a plugin directory set to be >>> supplied to the >>> bootstrap task? Right now it just assumes that plugins will be >>> all jar files >>> alongside xdoclet.jar, which while covering the most common >>> usage, does not >>> cover the case where your module jars might be in different >>> places (eg, say >>> you're testing a new jar, that is in another build tree, and you >>> want to link >>> that in), just allowing for a 'module-dir' attribute would >>> achieve the same >>> effect I think, as well as bypassing the ant classloader bug. >>> >>> Quoting Aslak Hellesoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Xdoclet-devel mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel > > > _______________________________________________ Xdoclet-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
