David Corbin wrote: > > What made me reconsider was message from Ken Wood that > indicated ant should be focused on the what to build and how, and not > all the periphery stuff around that.
Ah, but rarely are boundaries clearcut! Strictly speaking, ant doesn't need to know how to get stuff from a repository, any more than it needs to know how to schedule itself to build... Ant should just know how to do the build. But, in fact, for many projects the first step of a build is to get the latest versions from a repository. Ant has a variety of tasks for doing that via different configuraiton management tools. This happens frequently enough, and commonly enough, that many people include accessing a repository as the definition of what it means to do a build. So, that boundary of what defines a "build" is rather fuzzy. Since I was dropping ant into an existing infrastructure that already knew how to get the latest files from the repository, I've never used these features of ant. But I agree that they rightfuly have a place within what we expect ant to be able to do. Oh, and I like your idea. It's a little odd that the listener can affect the behavior of the build, but builds are often an odd problem to deal with anyhow, so why not... > > Thoughts? > -- > David Corbin > Mach Turtle Technologies, Inc. > http://www.machturtle.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
