Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010507154541.00796ab0@mail.alphalink.com.au>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 15:45:41 +1000
To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
From: Peter Donald <donaldp@apache.org>
Subject: Re: AntShell
Cc: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <3AF62EF4.CF59F8BE@binarix.com>
References: <3.0.6.32.20010507135552.00ad8460@mail.alphalink.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 03:13  7/5/01 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
>Peter Donald wrote:
>> It will be in Ant2 but until then I think everyone is being conservative in
>> patches they apply ;)
>
>The only changes to the existing code are:
>
>- in Main.java: runBuild becomes protected rather than private
>- in build.xml: makes antshell script executable on Unix
>
>It seems not too risky to me but I could be wrong about the first one...
>The rest are additions, so everyone can slam *me* if they don't work ;-)

Yep the shell works the way you have set it. The problems is that there
could be assumptions made in other bits of code. A lot of tools cache
things in static variables (including the jdk tools) which means that you
can get erratic behaviour. While most things would work ... others may end
up working inconsistently over time - or worse ... being platform dependent
(ie *nix traditionally doesn't file lock but win32 does). That saids - as
it works most of the time for java projects - at least if you use jikes the
"one true compiler" ;) - I would be happy to add it in if you can convince
another committer to support it aswell ;)

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               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*