Conor (and Michael and James and Arnout...), I think you've got me convinced. It is certainly good to reduce "side-effect" processing, and optionality can lead to artificial complexity. Heck, just last week I had the same discussion on an internal project where I argued for verbosity over side-effects. Explicitly copying the *.properties via
<copydir src="src" dest="classes" includes="**/*.properties"/> is looking better. Will this tag work as expected? I have not downloaded ANT since all the include/exclude code was added. Glenn. > From: Conor MacNeill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 4:23 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Unbundling copying support files from the javac task > > > 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
