OK. I think that there is a little confusion here between the compiler ATTRIBUTE and the compiler PROPERTY. The compiler PROPERTY is the old "build.compiler" property that we all know and love. The compiler ATTRIBUTE is an attribute for the <javac> that I introduced in my first javac patch. (e.g.: <javac compiler="modern"/>) But I removed in my second version of the patch, as Peter raised concerns against it's usage.
In both versions of my <javac> patch, the refactoring still took into consideration the value of the build.compiler property. I.e.: the compiler adapter factory would look at this value to determine which compiler adapter to create. This allowed backwards compatibility. In the first version of my patch, if the compiler ATTRIBUTE was specified, then the compiler adapter factory would ignore the compiler property in favour of the compiler attribute. I.e.: the attribute over-rode the property. Hopefully this will clear up some confusions. So, Ken, what exactly are you voting against. Are you voting against the possibility of explicitly stating the compiler required through the use of the compiler ATTRIBUTE, or are you voting against the implicitly declaration of the compiler through the use of the compiler PROPERTY? > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Wood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 10:50 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PATCH] attempt 2 at javac refactoring. > > > I agree. When you are respsonible for a product with > very specific requirements as to what compiler, what > libraries, etc are used, you do NOT want a build > tool to be an eager beaver and just go run with > anything it can find. There is this requirement > for a defined, controlled, repeatable process... > > -1000 for anything like this. > > Diane Holt wrote: > > > I agree about not losing the compiler property -- I need to > specify which > > compiler is being used going in. > > > > But I have to disagree with this idea: > > > > > And, I also think, that old modern and classic compilers should be > > > special, I mean, if I set compiler to be jikes, and jikes is not > > > installed > > > on the user site, current ANT throws an exception. I > think more robust > > > would be to issue a warning, and try to compile with > modern, and if this > > > one is not present either, try classic. Thus it would be > great in case > > > of failure of any "custom" compiler, trying modern then classic. > > > > This would be a very bad idea, as far as I'm concerned -- I > can't just > > have things compiling willy-nilly with any old compiler Ant > happens to > > find. Yikes! Which compiler I'm using needs to be a very > controlled aspect > > of the build. > > > > Diane > > > > ===== > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. > > http://shopping.yahoo.com/ > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
