Simplifying the build file is a good idea. But my point was that
"traditionally" XSL is separate from the file it is operating on. I
don't want to HAVE to have two files. I'd rather we stuck with one file
required, and support for include. Then, if you want, you can put your
rules in a separate file, and simply include it.
Diane Holt wrote:
>
> --- David Corbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, I can live with that, IFF it is in a single file...
>
> I would rather it not be, actually. I prefer Jam's approach of allowing
> "rules" files and keeping the buildfiles themselves exceedingly
> uncomplicated to deal with. It's actually one of the drawbacks of Ant, for
> me, that the buildfiles are so much "busier", and one which almost made me
> not choose to go with it. For example, a Jam buildfile can be as simple
> as:
>
> Classes Foo Bar Baz ;
>
> whereas the same thing expressed in an Ant buildfile is lots and lots of
> XML code. True, once you get used to reading XML, it's not as daunting as
> it first appears, but I would still prefer to have Ant buildfiles that are
> as simple as the above example(*). I have always been of the opinion that
> end-users of the build system shouldn't have to be exposed to the "bones"
> of the system, and it's been my experience that most of them usually
> prefer to not have to be -- the simpler things are at the level they need
> to deal with it, the better.
>
> (*)Although I'd be willing to compromise, and have something like:
> <javac files="foo, bar, baz">
> <classspath add="${jar.dir}/extrastuff.jar/>
> </javac>
> with all the other attributes/nested-elements defined with default
> values in a template in a template-file somewhere.
>
> Diane
>
> =====
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
--
David Corbin
Mach Turtle Technologies, Inc.
http://www.machturtle.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
