Peter Donald wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 20:19, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Peter Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So far I have have vetoed the change and given reasons which other people have supported.
I've cited all reasons as far as I can tell. These reasons are reasons against top-level tasks, not against target-less builds.
I have no problem with top level tasks and I have never said I did as far as I recall. I would prefer that only declarators were part of top level but as that is nearly impossible to implement due to ants wonderful codebase I have no problem with making any task a top level task.
You can not honestly claim that my example (b) is cleaner, clearer, easier to understand or makes the learning curve smoother than my example (a).
I can claim that
<project> <target name="main"> <echo>Hello world</echo> </target> </project>
is cleaner, clearer, easier to understand ... yada yada.
It follows our current model where work is described by targets and is requires very little effort to migrate into a fully fledged, well modularised build file.
Where I don't think targetless build files do the same. Stephane seems to agree with me thus my -1 is not invalid.
Listen guys, if we follow the analogy with Java classes, what Peter says make perfect sense.
Having targetless buildfiles is like having methodless classes with only a static part... I don't know if it's possible in java, but who would ever use it?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
