On 27 Oct 2000, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> >>>>> "GS" == Gottfried Szing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> GS> But there is no way to define an explicit override.
>
> This is what I said, we probably need a way to say it is OK
> to override this. IMHO the master build has to decide which
> are allowed to be overriden and not the sub build.
and how this is possible? using different kinds of properties
like one which acts as a "constant" and one which bevahes like a
"variable"? is this difficult to implement? i think it is.
how about an override paramter?
> what you want is
>
> <target name="compileit">
>
> <antcall target="compile_sources">
> <param name="SOURCES" value="x1.java,x2.java" />
> </antcall>
>
> <antcall target="compile_sources">
> <param name="SOURCES" value="x4.java,x3.java" />
> </antcall>
> </target>
>
> which is a lot easier to understand IMHO.
but does not the same. i have already posted this - dont know to
ant-user or ant-dev. but i mention the difference again:
if i want to call 2 subprojects in two different directories
which contains the java files i have to list the properties in
the parent directory! thats not a very clean solution bacause
always the parent hav to know what in the child is.
and another problem is that you cannot issue an antcall in
a different directory. AFAIK the buildfile would be the same!
> And then as a short term solution (until we have decided on
> the future of properties) you can write your own task, say
> mutableproperty that does the same as <property> but doesn't
> check whether the property already exists. You can always
> call Project.setProperty, it's just <property> that doesn't
> want to override properties.
i made it this much easier for me: i removed the part of the code
what checked this. but i hope this is only a short-time solution
because i dont want to have a different version of ant runnin on
my system.
--
cu, goofy
To predict the future, you must know the past. -Pat Artis
--> http://yasd.dhs.org/ ICQ: 34550587
