DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4884>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4884 Dependant targets fire unnecessarily ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2001-11-15 14:27 ------- Targets invoked by antcall cannot set properties that are visible to the calling target. One must use the depends="" invocation to implement the scenario you mention where a dependent target sets a property for the calling target to use. I have the following scenario which I use as a work-around: <target name="build-default" unless="skip.build.x" depends="special-case1, special-case2"> <echo message="build-default"/> </target> <target name="special-case1" if="build.special-case1" unless="skip.build.x"> <property name="skip.build.x" value="true"/> <echo message="build-special-case1"/> </target> <target name="special-case2" if="build.special-case2" unless="skip.build.x"> <property name="skip.build.x" value="true"/> <echo message="build-special-case2"/> </target> Each special case needs an explicit unless="skip.build.x" to prevent it from firing. The problem is I can't test for a different condition or nest a similar strategy within one of these special cases. If default tested the unless before firing dependents then I could omit the unless clauses in each of my special case targets. As for lobbying for a change in Ant2...perhaps this is what I'm doing now. Todd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
