On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 01:01:05PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am kind-of new to the Ant world but I already start to like it. I am
> currently experimenting with ant1.4.1 to replace our current build
> environment (MKSToolkit + gmake). I end up looking at ant source
> code, and started to modify it to push my experiments. I will send
> multiple emails on the modifications that I did since they are not all
> related to each other.
>
> This first modification is related to the inclusion of xml documents into
> build.xml files using public identifier instead of only system
> identifier. It seems that being able to create reusable pieces of
> build.xml files is very useful. Only problem with that, the path of
> those reusable xml chunks needs to be hardcoded in each build.xml
> files.
Just to clarify.. I take it you mean the &entity; method of pulling in
additional XML?
<!DOCTYPE project [
<!ENTITY moreTargets SYSTEM "file:build-xtra.xml">
]>
<project>
..
&moreTargets;
..
</project>
> Using a catalog to map public identifier to system identifier will
> centralize this information.
(background for people not familiar with SGML Open Catalogs (socats):
http://www.arbortext.com/Think_Tank/XML_Resources/Issue_Three/issue_three.html)
So you want to have a PUBLIC id instead of SYSTEM, and then use a
catalog to look up the real SYSTEM id?
I'm curious as to why you'd need anything more complicated than a
relative reference, as shown above? Ie, why not just ensure your SYSTEM
id is relative, and correct?
> The modifications that I did are the following:
> - add -catalog option to Main.java to specify a catalog file (public
> to system identifier mapping)
That implies you're using a set of classes to parse the catalog file,
right? But...
> - add a Hashtable member variable mapping public to system
> identifier to the project class (so it can be passed
> on to sub-projects)
.. this implies you're using a fixed lookup table?
> - modify resolveEntity in ProjectHelper to check with Project object
> if a public to system identifier mapping
> is available (when public id is not null).
>
> Do you agree that such feature is useful?
A decent inclusion mechanism would certainly be nice, and I think has
been accepted for Ant 2. I'm not sure that most people need a
centralized catalog of 'build components', which I gather is what you've
created. It's a nice feature though. I suspect what gets implemented for
Ant 2 will be more like XInclude (eg <ant:include file="foo.xml"/>) than
XML entities ("&foo;").
--Jeff
>
> Thomas
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
