At 08:31 8/5/01 +0200, Ceki G�lc� wrote:
>At 08:36 08.05.2001 +1000, you wrote:
>>At 06:09 7/5/01 +0200, Ceki G�lc� wrote:
>>>>Unfortunately half projects use "build" for (1) and half use it for
(2). My
>>>>recomendation would be to invent a new name for (1) that conflicts with no
>>>>existing project - perhaps "intermediate". For (2) I recomend "tools" as
>>>>that makes it very clear what is contained within that directory.
>>>
>>>I have asked this before but is there a need for an intermediary
>>directory? For example, to take an example I am familiar with, Tomcat 4.x,
>>a damn good project I might add, has a build/ directory and a dist/
>>directory where dist/ is a copy of build/. I do not know why Tomcat is
>>doing this but it is. Other projects are doing similar things. I am
>>obviously missing something...
>>
>>It is neccessary as a lot of things may be generated but not distributed in
>>final distribution. For instance in Avalon/Cornerstone we
>>* we create .class files (that are not distributed)
>>* pack the classes int jar files (that are not distributed)
>>* pack these jar files into another deployment jar (is distributed)
>
>OK but have you considered <delete>? Cheers, Ceki
And rebuild the whole thing every rebuild ? - no thanks - I don't see the
need to put in a hack to get around directory names. Directory should
integrate into build process - not the reverse.
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
