I do it that way for two reasons mainly:
(1) Many times during development I need to have certain tasks disabled,
and sometimes what is enabled and disabled changes, and I find it easier
to comment out an antcall as shown.
(2) It's a little more explicit in my mind as to what is happening and
in what order. I prefer to not let the runtime work things out for
itself as much as possible, I prefer being able to tell exactly what is
going to happen, and it feels like I can do that more this way.
I haven't been using Ant all that long frankly, I was previously a batch
file guy :) So I have not problem believing this isn't the "right" way
to do things if that's what anyone wants to tell me... I know it works
well for me though :)
Frank
Steve Loughran wrote:
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
Hi again,
This did the trick, almost... there was one other piece to the
puzzle... I had to add inheritRefs="true" to all the targets I
antcall'd. So, my main build target looks like:
<target name="build">
<get_dependencies />
<antcall target="compile" inheritRefs="true" />
<antcall target="make_javadocs" inheritRefs="true" />
<antcall target="checkstyle" inheritRefs="true" />
</target>
why do you structure your build process this way. Surely it is easier
for each target to declare their dependencies and let the runtime work
it out for themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Founder and Chief Software Architect
Omnytex Technologies
http://www.omnytex.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
