On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 01:23, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
> From: "Stefan Bodewig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > There is little reason to force users to check any possible
> > > dependency graph in order to make sure all evaluation paths start at
> > > "init". It is a waist of the developer time.
> >
> > If all my targets require the directory "build" to exist, I have to
> > ensure that all my targets depend on my "setup" target with the
> > appropriate <mkdir> task in it - I don't see that much of a
> > difference.
>
> To a certain extend you are right.
>
> The only difference is that if the directory does not exists, then your
> build most probably will fail. If instead your properties are not declared,
> you will get "${lkjdsfa}" in the definition strings and the build will keep
> on going wrongly.
Not in ant2. It will spit the dummy saying ${lkjdsfa} is not defined.
> I still think there is an intrinsic ANT concept of "actions that declare
> things" that we need to take into account in a more general and orthogonal
> fashion than what we do today. And no, they may not be just properties.
you keep saying that but I have yet to see an example.
--
Cheers,
Pete
------------------------------------
The two secrets to success:
1- Don't tell anyone everything.
------------------------------------
