ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sam Ruby" <ru...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: build.classpath and tinderbox builds
Date Mon, 08 Jan 2001 17:15:26 GMT
James Duncan Davidson wrote:
>
> Eeek. Seems to me that the javac shouldn't have the
> classpath reference in there if it's not right to have
> it in there. Does providing a way to override this from
> the outside solve any problems that really are
> structural to the way the build file is written?
> Including *.jar is pretty scary in any case. And why
> would there be a jar there that shouldn't be?

In a declaritive programming tool, such as Ant, there is always the
possibility of specifying how to handle conditions that may not apply given
your current environment.  To name a few: Jikes options; JDK 1.2 specific
javadoc options; the entire chmod task.

If you don't buy this argument, then treat this as a interrim solution
until a complete solution can be worked out.  Many of the current build.xml
files are narrowly targetted to one specific use case.  Attempts to discuss
this have not produced tangible results.  I brought this to the PMC last
year, where it was also ignored.  Now I am actively working on establishing
consensus that there is another use case that needs to be addressed.

- Sam Ruby


Mime
View raw message