> Whatever you've done, it seems you've broken something with it, see > the Strut's nags (I'll be looking into the other builds that fail on > LSD but not on my Gump 0.3 machine). > > Now it looks as if //ant/depend wouldn't create a CLASSPATH entry at > all.
Hmm, sorry. I hate when I break something so large. I can find some time to look at this today (a good excuse for my mum to play with the grandaughter she flew over to see :-). I did these things: 1) Allow <property to default to noclasspath, and a classpath attribute (any) to reverse that. 2) Allow <property to inherit 'none' nor inherit 'all. 3) Attempted to implement noclasspath (it wasn't wired up) 4) Attempted to allow 'has full dependency on' to respect 'noclasspath' (i.e. if a dependency exists, but is <noclasspath>, then it isn't a "full" dependency (accoring to original Sam code) and then allow a full one to be added. Two things worry me: 1) I put the if depend.isNoClassapath() at the top of a recusrsive routine so if no classpath then even things like 'inherit=all' get ignored, 'cos it isn't recursed down into. I'm nervous about that, but it seem correct, right? 2) I see the "project.hasFullDependencyOnNamedProject(property.project)" is above the code to add a dependency for that property. Huh? If a property ought default to noclasspath, then does it need a full dependency? Does not any dependency count? That said, one 1 seems to affect dependencies, and neither affect <ant <depend soley/directly. I will dig in further. > > BTW: Stefan, you updated the depend xdocs for <noclasspath>, but did > > you add anything for classpath attribute on property? > > I'm not aware that <property> has a classpath attribute, that's why I > didn't add any docs. Does it have one? It has, just looked into > Project.java. > > <depend> is turned into <property classpath="add"/>. > > <property> without a classpath atribute is turned into > <property><noclasspath/></property>, the value of the classpath > attribute is ignored completely. > > Maybe we should decide what the correct semantics are supposed to be > and adapt Gump 0.3 (1.0, "traditional", whatever) to work that way. > Something like classpath="ignore" or similar should be supported and > maybe we drop/deprecate <noclasspath/>. > I'm game for either. regards Adam --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
