ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Dawson <tdaw...@wamnet.com>
Subject RE: if/unless on fail??
Date Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:18:58 GMT
I'm not gonna give up on this until everybody tells me to shut up. :-)

Am I the only one that uses <fail>? Or is everybody just happy with the
status quo of having to create a separate target for each possible use of
<fail>?

Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Dawson [mailto:tdawson@wamnet.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 11:09 AM
> To: 'ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org'
> Subject: RE: if/unless on fail??
> 
> 
> Picking up this thread which got dropped after the atrocity...
> 
> > hmm true. I guess I can't see where fail tasks would not 
> > require if/unless. Is there any (supported) use case where
> > this is so? I just went to use it for the first time today
> > and found it somewhat cumbersome. Not cumbersome because 
> > of lacking features in ant but because the task is not useful 
> > as a standalone task but has to be munged into an ugly target
> > construct.
> 
> Now you see my pain! :-)  I wholeheartedly agree.  I'm 
> generally not in
> favor of proposals that turn Ant into a scripting language, 
> but I have to
> agree that <fail> as it is today, is VERY cumbersome. I sent 
> out a number of
> notes requesting if/unless this several months ago, and got 
> shouted down as
> being pro-scripting. 
> 
> Well, I had also asked for if/unless for the "echo" task, so 
> I suppose I was
> at least partially guilty. :-)
> 
> I'm glad that others have also discovered that <fail>, on its 
> own, is very
> ugly and cumbersome becuase and every single time its used 
> (at least every
> single time I've ever used it) you have to wrap it in an ugly 
> extra-target
> construct.  This isn't simply a matter of a shortcut or a 
> convenience, it is
> a MAJOR usability issue - the extra targets make build file 
> maintainence
> much harder.
> 
> I'm not a committer, but I'd really like to see this brought 
> up again for a
> vote. Hard and fast rules are very rarely a substitute for 
> good judgement,
> and I would think that this is a case that screams out for an 
> exception.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tim
> 
> PS: I was glad to see that in 1.4, the <fail> task had been 
> extended to
> allow a body in addition to the message attribute.  That was 
> one of the
> things I had asked for along with the if/unless
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Donald [mailto:donaldp@apache.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 10:03 AM
> > To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: if/unless on fail??
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 22:36, Glenn McAllister wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Peter Donald <donaldp@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > Couldn't spot the reason - can anyone enlighten me?
> > > >
> > > > "All tasks or no task" and "all tasks" has been rejected IIRC.
> > 
> > ahh - yes - that sounds right ;)
> >  
> > > That was pretty much my position.  I agreed with the person who
> > > was pushing for if/unless on fail that it would make life a lot
> > > easier in the case of wanting to kill the build early if a
> > > particular resource was missing.  My concern, however, was
> > > opening up that slippery slope, so my -1.
> > 
> > hmm true. I guess I can't see where fail tasks would not 
> > require if/unless. 
> > Is there any (supported) use case where this is so? I just 
> > went to use it for 
> > the first time today and found it somewhat cumbersome. Not 
> > cumbersome because 
> > of lacking features in ant but because the task is not useful 
> > as a standalone 
> > task but has to be munged into an ugly target construct.
> > 
> > > That being said, I'm willing to conceed that if we get a
> > > concensus vote on changing fail to have if/unless, I'll go along
> > > with it.  Its an unusual enough situation that an exception can
> > > be justified, and seeing as we "thought police" are vigorously on
> > > the prowl, it shouldn't go any further. :-)
> > 
> > ;)
> > 
> > -- 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Pete
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------
> > I just hate 'yes' men, don't you Smithers?
> > ------------------------------------------
> > 
> 

Mime
View raw message