RE: PROPOSAL: New Java Build Feature

[Denis, Ronald J (Ronald)** CTR **]

I too use ant for my builds.  It does not compile 
every file every time.  However, admittedly there have 
been times when compile errors occur which only go away 
upon a full rebuild.  This doesn't happen often but does 
happen often enough that its annoying.

Ron Denis 
E-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Consultant
Lucent Technologies Inc.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Bucciarelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 1:49 PM
> To: Paul Kinnucan; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Stephane; Richard den Adel; JDE Mailing List
> Subject: RE: PROPOSAL: New Java Build Feature
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Kinnucan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 1:23 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: Stephane; Richard den Adel; JDE Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: New Java Build Feature
> {snip!}
> 
> > >> In any event, my proposal can be combined with make or ant. All I
> > >> am suggesting is that instead of trying to compile every class in
> > >> your project, ant or make could compile only one: a compile
> > >> master that references every class in your project. The Java
> > >> compiler would then make sure that all files that needed to be
> > >> compiled would be compiled. I think this approach, which I did
> > >> not originate, is brilliant.
> 
> I'm going to jump in here.  I get the sense there's been a fair amount
> of back and forth here on this proposal.  I searched the archives
> looking for how to use Ant with JDE and read five or six posts
> regarding Paul's proposal, so perhaps there are others that have not
> yet been posted there ... but anyway, here goes ...
> 
> I'm using Ant 1.3 and the <javac> task only compiles the classes that
> need recompiling.  Perhaps they have over-ridden the behavior of
> javac--if you're curious, you can take a look at the source for the
> javac task on Apache's webCVS page.
> 
> I have been using Ant in conjunction with JUnit 3.5 for the past two
> weeks and I can't recommend it strongly enough.
> 
> I am starting to think about my classes so they are "testable" which
> means I think about the interface first and foremost.  A side-effect
> is that I try to minimize the interface so I don't have to write many
> test methods.
> 
> I'm starting to write my test code first, and then the production
> code.  When the production code passes the test, I'm done.  I've
> become much more aggressive in refactoring code that I have tests
> written for; I am (fairly :) confident that if it passes the tests,
> then I'm done.
> 
> I would suggest using the functionality built into Ant for dependency
> checking when building.  Again, sorry if this rehashes stuff that has
> already been covered in gory detail, but I just signed (back) on to
> the list today.
>