The Jakarta project (another Apache-hosted project) is using a Java-based make tool (I think it's called Ant) which I believe solves most cross-platform issues (since it's Java). Another note is Ant's makefile is XML-based, so I think it's ironical if Xerces-J/Xalan-J is not using Ant.
Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus wrote: > I tend to agree that it would be better to stick with vanilla make. We > want as few dependencies on non-pervasive tools as possible. > > For Java, I think we have a pretty good cut at a good make system on Xalan. > While it is not automatic, it is fairly simple, and, with a little work it > can probably be made to work with a wide variety of DOS make tools, not > just Cygnus. What I like about our system is that it doesn't compile a > file at a time... it compiles XPath, for instance, in a single line, > passing it all changed files at once. Since Java chases down dependencies > and compiles them, this is very important for a fast build. Xalan will do > a clean build of the xalan.jar in under two minutes, using javac, on my > Thinkpad 600. > > For C++, there is no question in my mind that an automatic makemake system > should be used. > > -scott > > > Steve > Suehring To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sander > van Zoest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: (bcc: Scott > Boag/CAM/Lotus) > edcs.com> Subject: Re: Make Tools (was Re: > version numbers) > > 11/10/99 > 08:56 PM > Please > respond to > xerces-dev > > > > I would much rather stick with make. From an implementation standpoint > it's much easier to debug make on the end-user level than it is to work > with another tool. > > Steve > > On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Sander van Zoest wrote: > > > On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > > > > > > Stefano pointed out the existance of a Make tool implemented in > > > > Java, which would be more than fine with me. I don't know how big > the > > > > download for this is, but it's worth investigating. As far as jar > files > > > > go, that would be fine with me as well. > > > Another option would be to stick to pure 'make'. As in a subset of > 'gmake' > > > :-). > > > > I would vote for a pure 'make' install mechanism, so the FreeBSD version > > could simply use the native pmake rather then requiring people to install > > gmake or any other build tool. > > > > If we do require another build tool, it would be nice if it came with the > > tarball sort of like ralfs' APACI for the apache http server. > > > > -- > > Sander van Zoest > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > High Geek (858) > 623-7442 > > MP3.com, Inc. > http://www.mp3.com/ > >
