If you want to mark targets as 'end-user' targets, you should explicitly mark them. Marking the tasks you don't want to show is counter-intuitive and error-prone (you may forget to mark a 'private' target, or you may not update your existing build files).
As a plus, with KC's approach you could only publish targets by adding an explanation to them. :-) What are the advantages of the 'private' flag? Wolf > -----Original Message----- > From: Marcel Schutte [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 3:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Suggestion for new commandline switch -targets > > > Hi, > > Both Conor and KC seem to be not so keen on the 'private' > flag for targets. > What are your objections? > > I've tried my patch on ant's own build.xml with this result: > > Buildfile: build.xml > Targets: > -install > -dist-tgz > -dist > -dist-zip > -compile > -fullinstall > -get.snapshot > -javadocs > -check_for_optional_packages > -total-clean > -bootstrap > -main > -jar > -prepare > -compiletests > -clean > -make.snapshot > -runtests > > I definitely miss a description for each target but it would > also be very > useful if something like 'check_for_optional_packages' was > filtered out > > Regards, > Marcel Schutte > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: KC Baltz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: maandag 14 augustus 2000 15:06 > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Suggestion for new commandline switch -targets > > > > > > I tend to agree that a 'private' tag could be misconstrued > as doing more > > than just hiding a task from commandline invocation. I > think that a > > -targets or -printtargets would be useful as long as it's > only intended to > > refresh your memory as to what targets are contained in > your buildfile. I > > like the idea of a <description>, but perhaps it should be > an optional > > attribute of the <target> tag. > > > > K.C. Baltz > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Conor MacNeill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 8:57 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Suggestion for new commandline > switch -targets > > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > > A thought I had at the time of the <help> conversation hooks up > > > > nicely here. > > > > Why not simply have an optional nested element for <target> > > > > called <description> > > > > or something like that, which provided verbiage of what the > > > task does, who > > > > should use it etc. Then the proposed 'ant -targets' could print > > > > descriptions > > > > along with the list of targets. For most people, I *hope*, this > > > > would simply be > > > > an exercise of moving text from some XML comments into a defined > > > > element.... > > > > > > Agreed. Pretty much agrees with what I suggested, I think. My > > > point was that > > > a list of targets, on its own lacks enough information to be > > > useful but > > > enough to be dangerous. > > > > > > I would prefer -targets therefore to be changed to support > > > printing this > > > help information. Perhaps -targets is no longer an > > > appropriate option label. > > > It should become a general project information dump, printing > > > project level > > > help, a list of targets, with their associated help. Perhaps > > > -info or -docs? > > > > > > I am not too keen on the "private" flag for targets, though. > > > > > > thoughts? Marcel? > > > > > > >
