Agreed. This needs to be implemented in some kind of Ant++-engine. Which basically uses the tasks of ant but with a different "kernel". It's an idea but it's definitely quite a bit of a project...
-----Original Message----- From: Jose Alberto Fernandez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 6:19 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [PATCH] Dynamic target Just for the record, I am not proposing it again. I just wanted to make the point that for this kind of feature you really need to design something much more solid than just a hack here and there. As for the "what you could do is provide a xslt/css/custom frontend that transforms into ant file" mantra, I do not think one can just do it that easy without just reimplementing 80% of ANT in the process. Since you need to understand what is and what is not with respect to the particular parameters in the input. This is not what css/xslt/etc are all about. Maybe I am wrong, but ... Jose Alberto > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 5:19 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Dynamic target > > > Hi, > > I would be completely and utterly -1 to implement > patternmatching or any > dynamic dependency tree building for that matter. If you want > make then > there is already jmk, jmak, jam etc. Ant is meant to be simple and > intuitive. Alternatively what you could do is provide a > xslt/css/custom > frontend that transforms into ant file. Whatever the case > this raises the > stakes too much IMHO and thus is definetly yucky > > > At 04:54 2/11/00 -0800, you wrote: > >Yes! The ability to specify targets as a pattern is the proper > >generalization/formalization of Jonas' proposal. And since > make has had that > >for a RLTN (Really Long Time Now ;) it's a pretty proven > feature. That is an > >extremely useful tool for build-system-generalization, and > probably what I > >miss most from make. > > > >So, was it a target-pattern war or anything? I'm pretty new > to this list. > >What was the reason for not having target-patterns? I'm > extremely +1 for > >target-patterns. > > > >Also: > ><target match="*" property="dynamic.target" ....> > > ... > ></target> > >is not the implementation of what Jonas proposed, basically the > >"dynamic.target" magic property of Jonas is the same as the $< magic > >property of make. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Jose Alberto Fernandez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 3:02 PM > >To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > >Subject: RE: [PATCH] Dynamic target > > > > > >My concern here is how do you plan to dealt with multiple targets? > >If I do: > > > > ant unk1 unk2 unk3 > > > >what Jonas proposed will not work since the property will > only get one value > >(not mutable). > > > >I do not have a solution for the problem either. > > > >How does this work if I have: > > > > <target name="known1" depends="unknown2" /> > > > >would the execution of known1 cause the execution of the > dynamic target > >corresponding to "unknown2"?. > > > >If this does not work, then I think we only have a cluge. > Any solid solution > >should work consistently independently of the situation. > > > >BTW, At some point I proposed having "template" targets. > Something like: > > > > <target match="unk*" property="prop.name"..... /> > > > >which matches any target that starts with "unk". If we add > to this some > >rules about priorities based on how good the match is, we > can get something > >more general and better formulated than the dynamic target concept. > > > >In particular, the dynamic target is nothing else than: > > > > <target match="*" property="dynamic.target" ....> > > ... > > </target> > > > >still there is the issue of what is the scope for "dynamic.target" > >if the rule applies again in a dependence, what should happen? > >Do we need a separate concept for keeping track of the > actual target name? > > "${}" could mean the actual name of the current target, which in the > >case of a matching target means the actual value matched. So > no "property" > >attribute required. > > > >Opinions? > > > >Jose Alberto > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jon Tirs�n [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 12:05 PM > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Subject: SV: [PATCH] Dynamic target > >> > >> > >> I'm not sure that the feature is 100% bad. I think that a > >> feature of that > >> kind in combination with the script-task would make much > more complex > >> behaviour in a build-system possible. It would for example be > >> a very good > >> tool for generalizing build-files to a higher degree. > >> > >> I do agree upon that the patch is to magic/implicit in it's current > >> manifestation. But I do see the use of such a feature in a > >> very advanced > >> ant-build-implementation. (Such as my own. :-) > >> > >> > >> -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > >> Fr�n: Conor MacNeill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Skickat: den 2 november 2000 06:29 > >> Till: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> �mne: RE: [PATCH] Dynamic target > >> > >> > >> Jonas, > >> > >> I agree with Stefan. This is too implicit for my liking. > >> Specially named > >> targets are not a good idea, IMHO. If you did want to have > >> this sort of > >> specific meaning, (and I question whether that is the > case, anyway), I > >> think it would require a different element name such as <dynamic>. > >> > >> So for now, I'm -1 on this patch. > >> > >> Conor > >> > >> > >> > > > Cheers, > > Pete > > *------------------------------------------------------* > | "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want | > | to test a man's character, give him power." | > | -Abraham Lincoln | > *------------------------------------------------------* >
