Dear Jan,
Sorry, I am new to the system.
Regards,
Srini.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 5:00 PM
To: dev@ant.apache.org
Subject: AW: Can you help me!!!
Once asked is enough - you´ll writing to a complete mailinglist ...
Jan
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: Srinivas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. Juni 2005 12:23
>An: Ant Developers List
>Betreff: Can you help me!!!
>
>
>Dear Smith,
>
> I am new to ant Scripting. My requirement is like
>this. We are using Weblogic.
>
> I receive an .EAR file and before deployment my BUILD
>should do the following.
>
>
> a. My Script should locate the
>weblogic-ejb-jar.xml inside the .EAR and
><trans-time-out></trans-time-out>
> Element should be modified per EJB basis.
>
> What do you suggest?
>
>
>Regards,
>Srini.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Phil Weighill-Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 8:42 PM
>To: Ant Developers List
>Subject: RE: A possible solution for conditional execution of tasks?
>
>
>There is the option to use the conditional task ("if") from
>ant-contrib... this allows the nesting of a "sequential" task
>which itself can contain any tasks you want.
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Sandip Chitale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Sent: Sun 29/05/2005 16:06
>
> To: Ant Developers List
>
> Cc:
>
> Subject: Re: A possible solution for conditional
>execution of tasks?
>
>
>
>
>
> Phil Weighill-Smith wrote:
>
>
> >My opinion regarding the disadvantages of this approach:
> >
> >* Antcall has to create a whole new Project in
>memory in order to work and is therefore an inefficient task
> >
>
> >
> Yes. If the project is large this could be a large
>overhead. It seems
> the semantics of antcall is not like a sub target but
>more like a target
> in a sub project (even though the project happens to be the same
> project). Is there a more lightweight solution planned
>in this area?
>
>
> >* If something invoked via Antcall depends on a
>target that is also depended on by something depending on the
>target invoking Antcall then this dependency target will be
>executed more than once because dependencies are not handled
>across Antcall invocations
> >
>
> >
> Yes.
>
>
> >* The dependency tree is "interrupted" and
>graphing tools that can show ant build script structures will
>not (generally) work correctly and show the whole dependency tree
> >
>
> >
> I did not think about the graphing tools, but that is a
>good point also.
>
>
> Given the fact that you did not list any advantages it
>seems this is not
> a good idea.
>
>
> >It might be better to add "if" and "unless" to the
>standard ant Task to allow for conditional execution, or even
>add a nested "condition" to the standard ant Task to allow for
>conditional execution. To provide BC with the standard
>"execute" method, the condition/if/unless processing would
>need to happen outside this method.
> >
>
> >
> This seems like this is the real answer. However I read
>somewhere that
> it is an architectural decision to not support "if" and
>"unless" etc. at
> the task level. Can anyone point me to a
>discussion/document on that?
>
>
> What about using scripting? Is that not recommended either?
>
>
> Google search revealed that many people are looking for
>solutions for
> similar problems.
>
>
> Regards,
> Sandip
>
>
> >
> >Phil :n.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sandip Chitale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Sat 28/05/2005 18:56
> > To: dev@ant.apache.org
> > Cc:
> > Subject: A possible solution for conditional
>execution of tasks?
> >
>
> >
>
> >
> > To conditionally execute a step in Ant one has
>to resort to setting up a
> > target structure like this:
> >
>
> > :
> > <target name="predicate">
> > <condition property="condition-satisfied">
> > <available .../>
> > :
> > </condition>
> > </target>
> >
>
> > <target name="conditional-step"
>if="condition-satisfied">
> > <!-- conditional tasks here -->
> > :
> > :
> > </target>
> >
>
> > <target name="conditional" depends="predicate,
>conditional-step"/>
> >
>
> > <target name="main" depends="conditional">
> > :
> > :
> > </target>
> > :
> >
>
> > This is because of several reasons:
> >
>
> > * The ant tasks do not have something like
>*if* attribute.
> > * One cannot get away with only two targets
>instead of three because
> > the dependencies are executed before the
>dependent. Using the
> > above example it is not possible to do
>what target predicate does
> > in the main target and avoid using the
>predicate target.
> > * Ensure order of execution
> >
>
> > However, I tried a solution making use of
>antcall task and it worked. It
> > works as follows:
> >
>
> > :
> > <target name="conditional-step"
>if="condition-satisfied">
> > <!-- conditional tasks here -->
> > :
> > :
> > </target>
> >
>
> > <target name="main" depends="conditional-step">
> > :
> > <condition property="condition-satisfied">
> > <available .../>
> > :
> > </condition>
> > <antcall target="condition-satisfied"/>
> > :
> > </target>
> >
>
> > The advantage of this approach is to quickly
>have some tasks execute
> > conditionally by putting them in a target and
>calling that target using
> > antcall after setting some property.
> >
>
> > And it seemed to work. My question is - is
>there a problem using this
> > approach? Why or why isn't this a preferred approach?
> >
>
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Sandip
> >
>
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>*********************************************************
>Disclaimer:
>
>The contents of this E-mail (including the contents of the
>enclosure(s) or attachment(s) if any) are privileged and
>confidential material of MBT and should not be disclosed to,
>used by or copied in any manner by anyone other than the
>intended addressee(s). In case you are not the desired
>addressee, you should delete this message and/or re-direct it
>to the sender. The views expressed in this E-mail message
>(including the enclosure(s) or attachment(s) if any) are those
>of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
>and with authority, states them to be the views of MBT.
>
>This e-mail message including attachment/(s), if any, is
>believed to be free of any virus. However, it is the
>responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus
>free and MBT is not responsible for any loss or damage arising
>in any way from its use
>
>*********************************************************
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*********************************************************
Disclaimer:
The contents of this E-mail (including the contents of the enclosure(s) or
attachment(s) if any) are privileged and confidential material of MBT and
should not be disclosed to, used by or copied in any manner by anyone other
than the intended addressee(s). In case you are not the desired addressee,
you should delete this message and/or re-direct it to the sender. The views
expressed in this E-mail message (including the enclosure(s) or attachment(s)
if any) are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views of MBT.
This e-mail message including attachment/(s), if any, is believed to be free of
any virus. However, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that
it is virus free and MBT is not responsible for any loss or damage arising in
any way from its use
*********************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
