On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, James Mitchell wrote:
> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 16:47:36 -0400 > From: James Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Struts-EL - BUILD FAILED > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Karr, David [mailto:david.karr@;attws.com] > > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 3:47 PM > > To: 'Struts Developers List' > > Subject: RE: Struts-EL - BUILD FAILED > > > > > > > Solutions: > > > 1. Comment out those 2 lines so as not to cause confusion. > > > > I guess that would make it so that the default build doesn't build > > struts-el. Craig was trying to ensure that it was built in the default > > build. I don't know whether this matters. > > > > > 2. Leave them 'as is' and add comments 'in order to build > > > struts-el, you > > > must create your own build.properties file there' as well as > > > here. For, > > > without it, ${user.home} is not picked up and consequently.... > > > > > > <property file="${user.home}/build.properties"/> > > > > > > points to nothing, so your base properties file is useless. > > > > Perhaps it might be useful to add checks in the build script for > > whether it > > finds a "build.properties" file, and emits a warning if it does not? It's > > something, at least. > > +1 > -1 because build.properties files at *any* level are totally optional. A better strategy would be to validate that the properties we care about are actually defined. For example, in Tomcat's build there are specific targets that list out all the settings (for visual verification) plus checks for the things that absolutely must be there. > James Mitchell > Software Engineer/Struts Evangelist > http://www.open-tools.org Craig -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
