From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I am still fairly sure I don't like anton (or javaon) style functionality at > all. Basically it amounts to limited version of foreach where only one var > can change each iteration. I can't see how either can lead to good build > practices - anyone care to enlighten me ? >
In the case of <javaon> I agree with your argument (although there is still the issue of having allowed <execon> as part of ANT in the first place) those asking for <javaon>, I think are just asking for symmetry on the tasks provided by ANT. With respect to <ant> (or <anton>) fileset functionality I disagree with your assesment. The question is whether the best practice is to have to modify a main-buildfile everytime a new subproject is added, or this can be done by simply installing the subproject in the right location in the source tree. For example in a project like tasklibs where you may have a large amount of quasi-independent subproject may be a good example. Shall each library be build only independently? shall there be a main-build that needs to be modified every time a new taglib is added? or shall the main build simply pickup the new taglibs as they are added. Different build shops may want to be able to use different policies on this regard and I do not see why one should be concidered better or worst than any other. It is a question about how much centralized control a shop wants to have of the build-process across an organization. Jose Alberto -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
