Please, Can we stop even thinking on having a separate autoconf tool for ANT? My stomach turns just by allowing the thought of such in the ANT context. 8-P
Now seriuosly, I think we can do much more better than that. Jose ALberto > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 6:00 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: if and unless attributes for all Tasks > > > 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 | > *-----------------------------------------------------* >
