Stefan writes: > > I would prefer (1) if we made it a normal target. > > Which would be the old unmodified "no tasks outside of targets" which > received a -1 by Conor ...
Well, he has to -1 it again now, doesn't he? I don't think a "-1000" counts for the next thousand times the vote is brought up. :-) Bevan Arps writes: > What about making this a proper target (ie no special syntax > or anything) > but have it identified in the project element. +1000 :-) This was actually my original request that kicked one of the earlier threads that morphed into this one. Actually, I used "init" as the attribute to keep away from the spelling (i.e. initialise vs initialize) controversies. :-) Someone had a problem with this because what if "getReady" had depends="foo". But I didn't really think that would be much of a problem. Another issue that was raised that I don't quite understand is that supposedly preprocess/validation requires top-level tasks. I mean, wouldn't it be possible to just execute the init target, and then validate all the other targets? this is effectively what happens if you have top level tasks. Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: Bevan Arps [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 2:01 PM > To: Ant Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Ant2] Tasks as siblings of <target> > > > At 09:39 31/10/2001 +0100, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > >Seems we have three options left that didn't receive any -1s: > > > >(1) All tasks (and types) can be placed into an <init> > construct which > >is much like a target, but cannot have dependencies of its own. All > >targets depend on this one implicitly. No tasks or types can be > >siblings of target. > > Just a thought from a satisfied Ant user ... > > What about making this a proper target (ie no special syntax > or anything) > but have it identified in the project element. > > ie something like this: > > <project > name="myTestProject" > default="buildEverything" > initialise="getReady"> > > <target name="buildEverything"> > ... > </target> > > <target name="getReady"> > ... > </target> > > </project> > > The "contract" could be simply that the initialise target always gets > executed first, reguardless of what other targets are invoked. > > I don't think that there would be any need to restrict it > from having it's > own depends list - since an initialisation target could be > used to ensure > things are available, having a number of dependencies to > check for the > availability of files/classes/xxx could be useful. > > Cheers, > Bevan. > > > > -- > "Programming is an Art Form that Fights Back" > > Bevan Arps (<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]) > Senior OO Analyst, ACT Financial Systems > > This communication is confidential to ACT Financial > Systems (Asia > Pacific) and is intended for use only by the addressee. > The views and > opinions expressed in this email are the senders own and do not > represent the views and opinions of ACT Financial > Systems (Asia > Pacific). > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
