At 01:12 16/5/01 +1000, Conor MacNeill wrote: >IIRC, Duncan was not happy with if and unless attribute at the target level >but did accept them on >at least one task, the antcall (or call-target) task >http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ant-dev&m=97847384004229&w=2 >The whole antcall approach with conditionals, however, seems to me to be >just as much a layering of conditional logic on top of the target dependency >model. If anything it seems more complex since I can't see dependencies just >by looking at the targets - I have to look at the use of antcall within ALL >the targets. The build structure is no longer immediately evident from the >targets. This is already a problem with Ant's own build file, IMHO.
if you mean the ant-calls for src and bianry distributions then I agree - UGLY ;) Though it is better than any alternative I could think of - you ? >Is writing tasks the right way? I'm not sure that is true. Could you explain why? ie What do you see wrong with writing a task for complex build "tasks". If you are referring to the initial setting of properties and general autoconf-like features then I agree that writing a task is overkill as most tests will be project specific. (I believe autoconf should be written in some scripting language like jython/rhino or another BSF mounted scripting language). However for the other stuff I think task writing is the WAY to go. Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-----------------------------------------------------*
