Hello, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> I've never understood this notion that it's better to go on > compiling with > you have errors!?!?!?!? What good does that do you? If you > have an error, > your Java code is broken, and you can't use that project. We are developing an financial portal and already have LOTS of JSPs and even more java files. There are several components in this portal, getting financial info, buying stock shares etc. So if we compile all classes at once with one javac task and there is an error in the 'financial info' part, the 'stock buying' part doesn't compile, too. But they are completely independent and we want to install this build anyway. If the 'financial info' team messed up their code: their problem. They need to fix it and we do another build then. Same for some basic components all use or could use in the future (the technical architecture components). There are developed new parts there and if the build of a new one fails, even all the old ones don't get compiled. And that is not acceptable. Understand my problem now? And it is no solution to compile every small part in its own javac task, because there would be 60 or 70 of them and with a new one we had to update the build.xml each time, too. And jikes isn't a solution either because we need a build with the 'recommended' compiler... recommended by the app server provider and the provider of the 'framework' we use (that is: bea and abaxx). If we use other things and we have problems they say "use recommended compiler first, then we talk more" *sigh* :-) MfG, Oliver Hertel -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
