On 10/5/05, Kyle Marvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/4/05, Eddie O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All-- > > > > I'm going to rename the system controls from being *.jcs files to > > being *.java files so that they're easier to work with in the IDE. > > Shouldn't be any other changes as a result except for a bit of code > > reformatting. > > > > Dissenters, weigh in. :) > > I think this is fine. Ironically, the reason why custom filename > extensions exist at all was to make things easier for an IDE (so it > could present different file types w/out having to open/scan the file > for annotations). > > But the actual handling of .jcs and .java is identical from a > bulid/runtime perspective, so there shouldn't be any problems. > > -- Kyle >
I haven't checked on this recently, but there may actually be an issue wrt build-time with eliminating .jcs. In order to ensure proper compile time dependency resolution for controls when using the JDK apt tool, at some point it was important to explicitly ensure that certain kinds of artifacts were compiled before others. This led to the "compileByExtension" attribute in AptTask, which allowed you to specify that certain extensions would be processed first. This is currently used in the "build-controls" and "build-webservices" targets in trunk/ant/beehive-tools.xml. Based on this, I would be a little surprised if we could rename all .jcs files in the tree to .java and have it "just work". While it may work in some specific cases, (say, the system controls) since they may not have dependency relationships that trigger problems, we should be clear on the "right answer" for the issue of .jcs in general.
