I have tried the hack solution 3) myself ; I have the impression that it is dirty [lengthy functions with a lot of ifs ], and will be more difficult to debug and support than a clean solution 2). I would rather go for 2). The bug has been around since the 12th of July last year when it has been reported by Sven Karlsen. I don't know how important it is not to delay 1.5.2 . Maybe it is possible to solve the bug 10755 both quickly and cleanly, if all the ant community contributes to solving it.
Antoine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefan Bodewig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 9:04 AM Subject: The zip update problem > The mail I promised yesterday but didn't manage to write since the > Gump/xdoclet problem is eating too much time ... > > I'm talking about bug 10755 here. The update feature of <zip> has > never worked, but it is broken in different ways in our past releases. > > In Ant 1.4.x, update="true" would have recreated the archive all the > time, in 1.5.x it will never get recreated unless the files that are > to be added to the archive are newer than the archive (which means > "never" if the archive gets created during the build in the first > place). > > I've been thinking about solving this in a most general way by > extending the underlying concepts in SourceFileScanner so that it can > deal with targets or sources that are not Files, but ZipEntrys (or at > a later point URLs or TarEntrys or ...). I had some initial ideas [1] > that I've not been too happy with and Magesh and Dominique have proven > that more thought needs to be put into the API. Later I ran out of > time (and my kids wouldn't allow me to code during my vacation, right > they were 8-). > > In the meantime, some people have suggested patches in bugzilla that > would lead to a simpler but more specific solution (most notably > Antoine Levy-Lambert). > > Putting things together, a good solution with an API that we'd want to > support in the future doesn't fit into the timeframe for a 1.5.2 > release, if we are talking about end of January IMHO. > > I see three options here: > > (1) don't fix it in the 1.5 branch at all. > > (2) delay 1.5.2 until we are happy with a general fix. > > (3) fix it in the 1.5 branch using cut'n'paste and private methods and > hacks and such (so that we don't add any public API that needs to be > supported in the future) and get it right in 1.6. > > I'm leaning towards (3) but want to get some feedback before I proceed > in that direction. After that I'd like to start discussion on what > "get it right" would be. > > Stefan > > Footnotes: > [1] <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103849839700001&r=1&w=2> > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
