>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Sander wrote: >>>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>>>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Sander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>Paul> >>>Paul> Unfortunately, if this is what your build procedure consists of, >> >>>Don't be silly. We have our own make tool (written in Java in fact) that >>>enforces various packaging layers during designer compilation and >>>loadbuild. >> >>>Paul> then you lose traceability between your sources and shippables, and >>>Paul> you can't assess the impact of any change you make to your source >>>Paul> code. That makes it really really hard to accomplish the common task >>>Paul> of shipping minimal patches when bugs are found in the product. >> >>>I believe that you would be insane to handle Java source in the fashion >>>described in my previous posting. My point was, however, that the language >>>does not *force* you to keep the source in some sort of coherent order so >>>that it's incorrect for people (including me) to claim that it does. >> >>I'm glad that we're in agreement. I do know some Java programmers who >>literally do use "javac `find . -name '*.java' -print`" as their build >>procedures, so I assume the worst when somebody mentions the practice.
>That's terrible! What if the resulting command line violates the >systems's environment passing limit? Of course, you want: > find . -name '*.java' -print | xargs javac >hopefully, none of the names contain spaces and newlines, but I wouldn't >put any such stupidity past Java programmers, so better use GNU tools: > find . -name '*.java' -print0 | xargs -0 javac I never said it was good or proper, just that it's common practice. And using xargs isn't much better because it can split the command line in awkward places. >--- End of forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
