Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <38E8D02B.57C9B1B0@eng.sun.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 10:08:59 -0700
From: Costin Manolache <costin@eng.sun.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org" <ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: Ant build.xml
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Is there any reason for building ant distribution in the same directory
as the ant source?

I find it very bad - it is hard to tell what file is the source and what
is the result of the build, and "ant dist" doesn't create a distribution
but just a messed-up source tree.

If nobody -1 it, I would like to use ../build/ant for ant build and
../dist/ant for ant
distribution.

I also think it's a good idea to use a common property  ( "buid.dir" )
for all projects as the base for the build work dir, and "dist.dir" as
base for all dist directories.

A third proposal - let's tag the workspace ( Apr. 4  or anything ) - it
is important to have a "known" ant that is used to build other projects.
If possible, please don't change the ant's build.xml with the latest and
greatest features - right now it works, and if it's not broken don't fix
it. You can ( and should ) create test cases for any change, but
build.xml is not intended as a test suite.

It would also be nice to not change ant behavior or remove features -
people are using ant as a build tool. Ant has a very clear design that
allows you to desing new tags without changing existing ones, and to
specify what implementation you want for a certain tag. Just extend or
create new tags based on the tags you feel are "wrong", and use them in
your own build.xml. I would rather use a stupid but stable ant, instead
of a very smart ant that changes every day.

Please let me know if that creates problems.

Costin