Patrick Chanezon wrote:
>
> Sorry to get back on this so late.
>
> Thanks for the comments on the patch.
> I agree with the syntax remark: it is much more elegant if the synatx
> for multiple lines is all XML and I'll try to implement it.
>
> My ";" notation was a quick fix that I needed to get it to run. I
> implemented it that way because I did not have time to investigate why
> the XML parser broke when I added multiple link tags.
Sam, I thought you patched this?
> As of the @filename option, it is just an extension and you are not
> obliged to use it, but I find it handy to have for projects which have
> an existing packagelist files and want to migrate quickly.
good point.
> Moreover, the packagelist is not checked, so the task performs even if
> some packages are missing or broken. So I found it more practical to
> use on my current project where a lot of packages are broken.
> The use case for it would be:
> It as an option to use to get things running, and switch to the
> regular notation when your project is in a more stable state.
> A last argument is: why would you forbid an argument of javadoc if it
> exists in the command line. If you don't like it, don't use it, but at
> least it is there if you want.
>
> Do you really want it out ?
No, I agree, but I'm ok if you display a warning saying that it's a much
better practice to include everything inside the build.xml file. How
does that sound?
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Missed us in Orlando? Make it up with ApacheCON Europe in London!
------------------------- http://ApacheCon.Com ---------------------
