Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 51611 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jun 2001 07:32:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 51601 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2001 07:32:55 -0000 Message-ID: <4E7888D4F219E145B6F81E5D3049E3BF1B1074@scmail01.arsin.com> From: Peter Vogel To: "'ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org'" Subject: RE: Properties and the tag Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 00:33:03 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N Of course, the right answer can be seen in Gnumake, the variable (property) assignment can be specified to override external settings or to be explicitly subservient to external settings. I used it all the time, to set up "default" tool locations which could then be overridden by a developer's specific environment. Assuming a developer installed everything where they were told to in the documentation I provided, it was possible to build with a *completely* empty environment -- if not, they had to set a documented environment variable to specify their location for the tools installed in a non-standard place. In ant I'd propose this: Makes the property setting subservient to upper levels, while: Makes the local property setting override the upper level settings. Alternatively: Where the default value of the override attribute would, IMHO be "true". -Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Diane Holt [mailto:holtdl@yahoo.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 2:40 PM > To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org > Subject: RE: Properties and the tag > > > --- Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > > I have mentioned it before. > > I think almost everyone has, at some point in time :) And I > think pretty > much everyone agrees (to a greater or lesser degree) that the way it's > currently being done isn't ideal -- which is why it will be > changing for > Ant2. > > > The current semantics makes absolute non-sense since it assumes that > > every property in every biuldfile being build has the same meaning. > > Granted -- but turn it around the other way: What about > properties that do > have the same meaning? For example, attributes whose values > are given as a > property. If I define the value for, say, the "debug" > attribute in > with ${debug}, which is set to 'false' by default, and I want > to define it > to 'true' for a particular run, I'd want that value to be in > effect for > the tasks in all the sub-projects, not just the > top-level project. > How would you see having sub-projects getting that value, if > they're not > getting it from the parent project? (I'd like to see > something like "task > templates", so you not only don't have to worry about things like the > example above, but you also then don't have to replicate the > entire task > everywhere you want to use it, and instead you'd just have that in one > place, with only those attributes that differ [eg., the > included/excluded > files] being specified in the tasks within the targets. But I > can't really > propose that, since I'm not yet up-to-speed enough with Java > to be able to > write the code for it, and it would be unfair to expect > someone else to > just because I'd like to see it work that way.) > > Diane > > ===== > (holtdl@yahoo.com) > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ >