Vincent Massol wrote:
>
> oh ok, I remember now ... so you're saying that the fact GUMP reported a
> failed build this morning was a pure coincidence and that nothing was
> changed ? What you're also saying is that you're no longer adding the work
> directory as part of the initial classpath but rather building the cactus
> ant jar beforehand and adding this jar to the classpath ?
We agree that something changed. We also agree that something is fragile.
I think where we need to come to agreement is on where that fragility lies.
My experience is that the following is fragile, no matter how you try to
spread it across separate build files.
<target name="all" depends="clean,jar,sample,doc,site,tests,dist">
<target name="tests" depends="jar.ant,tests-unit,tests-functional">
<target name="clean" depends="init">
<delete dir="${out.root.dir}"/>
</target>
<target name="jar.ant" depends="init">
<jar jarfile="${final.jar.ant.name}" basedir="${out.classes.ant.dir}"
manifest="${out.conf.ant.dir}/manifest"/>
</target>
<target name="init">
<taskdef name="argsList" classname="org.apache.commons.cactus.ant.ArgListTask">
<classpath>
<pathelement location="${final.jar.ant.name}"/>
<pathelement path="${java.class.path}"/>
</classpath>
</taskdef>
</target>
- Sam Ruby
P.S. I don't know yet if what I committed will address the problem. If
not, I will simply find a target other than all which does not do a clean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
