ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jay Glanville" <>
Subject RE: [PATCH] refactoring of javac task into factory
Date Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:52:22 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Diane Holt []
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 1:32 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] refactoring of javac task into factory
> (Hope this one doesn't end up being sent four mazillion times...)
> Jay,
> You're preaching to the choir here. I certainly don't want 
> anything being
> added in by the <javac> task -- I have an even more 
> convoluted compilation
> situation than you have, believe me. I never use 'javac' (the 
> compiler) --
> I use either or 
> (the VCafe25
> compiler) plus tons of other supplementary stuff passed in on 
> the compiler
> command-line. And I run 'ant' with jdk13. So I have a 
> modified
> that turns off adding the run-time libs (and has a doSjCompile()).
> Clearly, having your new stuff would make things much easier for me.
> I agree with all your reasoning as to why <javac> shouldn't make
> assumptions and throw all that extra stuff in there -- and if 
> it turns out
> there isn't a large amount of resistance to changing that 
> aspect of its
> behaviour, then no problem. I was just suggesting that, since 
> the current
> behaviour *is* to add all that stuff, there could be some 
> resistance to
> that being flipped around. Anyone currently relying on that 
> would have to
> go back and redo all their <javac> tasks to include the new 
> attributes --
> and having to go back and redo build-files is something 
> people tend to not
> want to have to do. I won't mind doing it, if it turns out having the
> default be "yes" is more popular, because it'll still be easier than
> having to always do my hand mod's every time I pick up a new 
> version of
> Ant, since I'll only need to do the build-file mods once.
> People are anticipating there'll be a need to redo 
> build-files for Ant2,
> but I think anything that wants a good chance of getting in for 1.3 is
> expected to have as low an impact on current users as possible.
> Diane

Good point.  Perhaps I should have proposed the following: have the
"includes" default to "yes" for release 1.3 to be compliant with the current
system, and then have them default to "no" in release 2.0 because that's the
way they should be (along with the fact that everything else is changing in


PS: About the choir ... nice singing voice ;-)

View raw message