DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18391>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18391 RFE: ignoreMissingBuildFiles option for subant ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-03-27 16:12 ------- I was thinking about this on the drive to and from work and it seems that subant class clearly was intended to support specifying a directory that contained a build.xml as well as specifying the build file explicitly. There is some work done to append the antfile to non-file path elements. Specifically this: for (int i=0; i<count; ++i) { File file = new File(filenames[i]); if (file.isDirectory()) { file = new File(file, antfile); } execute(file); } Since the task clearly is meant to support the use of directories, I think it is a good idea to give the users some control over how it handles missing build files. Alternately, one might decide that it is clearer if the task only works when the build file is specified and directories should always fail. I have a build working, now and it could be conducted either with dirsets and my patch or using Dominique's fileset method. It would be nice to know if I need to switch to the fileset method or not. My personal bias tends to be toward giving the user multiple options (so long as it doesn't lead to confusion or really messy practices). If there are multiple ways to do the same thing, a wider array of individuals will find that their first instinct on how to acomplish something is correct. To me this is what user-friendliness is all about :). I don't think my patch is large enough to raise perfomance issues, so I am still hoping it gets applied.
