Glenn, The problem is that there tends to be other files that end up being copied across that you don't really want. For example, CVS can leave versions of files around when you do an update and there is a conflict., editors can leave backup files, etc. My view is that you should be explicit about what you want copied into the build area.
Of course, we could go for a backwards compatible attribute to control the behaviour <javac copysupport="false" ...> Each such option, however, adds to ant's complexity. It may be better to reduce optionality rather than increase it. Conor > -----Original Message----- > From: Twiggs, Glenn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, 7 March 2000 9:06 > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: Unbundling copying support files from the javac task > > > The "copying support files" feature is one of the selling-points > of ANT (at > least for me), that I don't need to know all the details about setting up > the "classes" directory. I like that "javac" is totally self-contained. Is > there a situation where you would want to compile classes but not > copy over > the .properties file(s) used by those classes? > > Glenn. > > > From: Kuiper, Arnout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > What I would like to propose is that the function to copy > > support files be > > removed from javac. People who desire the current level of > > functionallity > > could simply add a > > <copydir excludes="**/*.java"> > > task to their build.xml files > > +1 for me! > > Arnout >
