ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Vogel <pvo...@arsin.com>
Subject RE: PATCH: Attributes of Target can reference properties
Date Tue, 03 Jul 2001 16:03:01 GMT
> I like (GNU)make and have only seen a few horrendous make 
> setups. I agree 
> with what your saying that it is better to hide complexity 
> and allow "build 
> engineers" to handle it. Consequently a makefile snippet I have shown 
> multiple times on this list is below.
> 
> I am sure you will agree that it is close to ideal setup for multiple 
> products in a workspace. All the complexity is hidden in 
> rules.mk, system 
> specific configurations are in a config.mk etc and this was 
> data.mk and 
> easily accessible by mere mortals.

We might disagree on a few points, but yes this was the idea, in make,
but we both agree ant is a different beast:

> 
> I just don't see that as a goal of ant. Ant is a different 
> beast, two of the 
> basic principles were extensibility and simplicity. If you 
> want to make 
> possible generic rules then that is fine but it is not Ant. 

I'm not after "generic" rules (i.e. of this form:

.o.s:
     asm ...

But rather, I am after having a set of targets which define the 
"standard" way of doing a few things and then allow an individual
build to extend that if necessary (i.e. we have one system that
needs to do a few "extra" things to generate .java files before compiling,
so it has a "local.precompile" that the standard "compile" target
depends on as a result of defining a property.  The average build.xml
file sans comments is 6 lines long (comments make it about 30).

> Ant2 will allow 
> you to customize to your hearts desire by simply dropping a 
> jar in place. So 
> if you still believe the stuff you say and are willing to 
> walk the walk 
> rather than talking the talk then you can do it.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the talk and
the walk, but part of what I want to avoid is the idea that 
it is ok to create a gazillion tasks as part of a build infrastructure,
there are some places where a task (or a few tasks) are completely
appropriate, for example building installation packages. But there
are others where a "roll your own" philosophy detracts from the goals
of ant.  I'm quite happy to write tasks, etc. to meet my needs, and 
I have done so where I felt it was appropriate. 

> but it is not Ant.

Isn't this *exactly* what JDD (original designer of ant) said about many
of the things that have been discussed on this list and are likely to be
in ant2 prior to getting shouted out of the community in January?

-Peter

Mime
View raw message