> If we impose on the developer only that he has the right "ant" or
> "ant.bat" script available in his or her PATH, do we care anything about
> Ant's internal organization? It seems to me that the Ant environment
> should take care of finding its own pieces.
>
> Craig
>
Everything used to work seemlessly until somebody comes up
with some dependent ant tasks and supposes a "normal" ant
dist environment. This can be avoided but there is a pretty
strong coherence in the apache group and sometimes these
dependencies remain in the scripts. E.g. the current build
script contains the servlet.jar at it's usual jakarta project
place and if you don't have this jar at that place, the build
will fail (as the target compile.library does not include
the system classpath. (I routinely issued - almost every day -
an 'ant clean; ant dist' command with my preset classpath, and
experianced that the clean build fail. Ok, I could override
the servlet.jar with ant -D) Build.sh contains the usual _HOME
dirs and places things at their usual relative places.
So, I wholehartedly support the bare ant command, just wanted
to raise the exclam mark that in general these properties can't
suppose the "normal" HOME dir layout. Users can gather their
common parsers, jars etc. (I used to fail - now have 15 xalan.jars
23 xerces.jars, 17 parser.jars, etc.) We should have classpath
properties independent form .home properties, etc. incze
