ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <dona...@apache.org>
Subject Re: TASTE QUESTION: optional description attribute for ant projects?
Date Wed, 11 Apr 2001 22:34:55 GMT
At 11:40  11/4/01 +1000, Conor MacNeill wrote:
>From: "Peter Donald" <donaldp@apache.org>
>To: <ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 11:28 PM
>Subject: Re: TASTE QUESTION: optional description attribute for ant
>projects?
>>
>> What about putting it in a comment directly before the relevent element?
>> (Or maybe this could be just for ant2). This works like the javadoc
>> semi-illiterate style and should be familiar to most. (Besides it doesn't
>> require no magic element names but can still contain a chunk of text).
>>
>
>In general I prefer to be explicit. Why overload a comment with another
>function when we can have an element to contain the text. Javadoc doesn't
>really do that since it uses a special comment delimiter. Anyway, such an
>element is no more a magic element than <target> and <property> are now. Is
>there a reason why we want to avoid new elements under project?

hundreds of good reasons ;)

However more importantly is the fact that we will eventually want to doc
targets or tasks etc. It would be better if there was a consistent doccing
standard. To achieve this you can easily and transparently use comments or
alternatively use magic element names throughout the build.xml. (Or wait
till an2 and use namespaces).

Cheers,

Pete

*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*


Mime
View raw message