On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 12:22:26 -0500, Vadim Gritsenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Duplication of code increases maintenance and splitting into several files won't fix it.
Yes, but there are limits to refactoring Ant scripts. E.g. if you want to have only one compile target, but be able to generate both debug and non-debug builds, then you need to invoke the compile target from within the build target manually and overwriting the properties there (debug=on etc.). This somewhat defeats the purpose of refactoring because the resulting script is actually harder to read than the original one.
I'll agree to disagree :)
Personally I'd prefer single compile target (with properties file), and build.xml which is a no-op on the second consequitive run, but seems you have other opinion.
As for separate files, I can suggest an approach where all release-related tasks are separated into second file, so that one build file is used most by developers, and another build file is used by ojb committers who are preparing a release.
I agree with documentation generation point though: when developing ojb you don't have to have forrest install, so docs build related checks and targets should be better isolated from code builds.
Personally I think that somebody who really wants to build OJB from source can be expected to fetch the relevant dependencies
... or modify the build.xml. Would be nice though to avoid that.
(which are not much, really, only those that we cannot - from license or size reasons - distribute them with the ojb src archive). Also I'm in the process of reworking some of the tutorials, and I'll add a short tutorial on building OJB from source which should make this easier.
It's not complex as it is, but ANT_HOME and forrest are not necessary to build OJB as it is.
Vadim
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
