ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jay Glanville" <dic...@nortelnetworks.com>
Subject RE: [PATCH] attempt 2 at javac refactoring.
Date Thu, 21 Dec 2000 15:58:08 GMT
OK.  I think that there is a little confusion here between the compiler
ATTRIBUTE and the compiler PROPERTY.  The compiler PROPERTY is the old
"build.compiler" property that we all know and love.  The compiler ATTRIBUTE
is an attribute for the <javac> that I introduced in my first javac patch.
(e.g.: <javac compiler="modern"/>)  But I removed in my second version of
the patch, as Peter raised concerns against it's usage.

In both versions of my <javac> patch, the refactoring still took into
consideration the value of the build.compiler property.  I.e.: the compiler
adapter factory would look at this value to determine which compiler adapter
to create.  This allowed backwards compatibility.

In the first version of my patch, if the compiler ATTRIBUTE was specified,
then the compiler adapter factory would ignore the compiler property in
favour of the compiler attribute.  I.e.: the attribute over-rode the
property.

Hopefully this will clear up some confusions.

So, Ken, what exactly are you voting against.  Are you voting against the
possibility of explicitly stating the compiler required through the use of
the compiler ATTRIBUTE, or are you voting against the implicitly declaration
of the compiler through the use of the compiler PROPERTY?



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Wood [mailto:kwood@i2.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 10:50 PM
> To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] attempt 2 at javac refactoring.
> 
> 
> I agree. When you are respsonible for a product with
> very specific requirements as to what compiler, what
> libraries, etc are used, you do NOT want a build
> tool to be an eager beaver and just go run with
> anything it can find.  There is this requirement
> for a defined, controlled, repeatable process...
> 
> -1000 for anything like this.
> 
> Diane Holt wrote:
> 
> > I agree about not losing the compiler property -- I need to 
> specify which
> > compiler is being used going in.
> >
> > But I have to disagree with this idea:
> >
> > > And, I also think, that old modern and classic compilers should be
> > > special, I mean, if I set compiler to be jikes, and jikes is not
> > > installed
> > > on the user site, current ANT throws an exception. I 
> think more robust
> > > would be to issue a warning, and try to compile with 
> modern, and if this
> > > one is not present either, try classic. Thus it would be 
> great in case
> > > of failure of any "custom" compiler, trying modern then classic.
> >
> > This would be a very bad idea, as far as I'm concerned -- I 
> can't just
> > have things compiling willy-nilly with any old compiler Ant 
> happens to
> > find. Yikes! Which compiler I'm using needs to be a very 
> controlled aspect
> > of the build.
> >
> > Diane
> >
> > =====
> > (holtdl@yahoo.com)
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
> > http://shopping.yahoo.com/
> >
> > 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message