Maybe that´s historical: when writing that peace of code I tested the paths _inside_ the buildfile and then extracting that into common.xml :)
Jan > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Dominique Devienne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 6. Oktober 2004 16:46 > An: Ant Users List > Betreff: RE: <import> and <path>s > > Note that by putting the extension classpath before the <import>, > and removing the it from common.xml, this works fine, and has the > advantage of failing the build is the importing build file does > not declare a path with the required ID. > > Kind of like having an 'abstract' path. > > Granted, that's more a side effect than by design, far from being > either obvious or elegant, but it should work nonetheless (although > I didn't try it). --DD > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stefano Mancarella [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 7:09 AM > > To: Ant Users List > > Subject: Re: <import> and <path>s > > > > Peter Reilly wrote: > > > This will cause the annoying > > > Overriding previous definition of reference to > classpath.additional > > > message. > > > > Yeah. I already got that when I redefined the path. > > > > > There is a bug report requesting the reduction of this message to > > verbose, > > > perhaps this would be a good thing to do! > > > > I agree. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
