ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Dawson <tdaw...@wamnet.com>
Subject RE: [Ant2] Tasks as siblings of <target>
Date Thu, 01 Nov 2001 22:12:21 GMT
Stefan writes:
> > I would prefer (1) if we made it a normal target.
> 
> Which would be the old unmodified "no tasks outside of targets" which
> received a -1 by Conor ...

Well, he has to -1 it again now, doesn't he? I don't think a "-1000" counts
for the next thousand times the vote is brought up. :-)

Bevan Arps writes:
> What about making this a proper target (ie no special syntax 
> or anything) 
> but have it identified in the project element.

+1000 :-)

This was actually my original request that kicked one of the earlier threads
that morphed into this one. Actually, I used "init" as the attribute to keep
away from the spelling (i.e. initialise vs initialize) controversies.  :-)

Someone had a problem with this because what if "getReady" had
depends="foo".  But I didn't really think that would be much of a problem.
Another issue that was raised that I don't quite understand is that
supposedly preprocess/validation requires top-level tasks. I mean, wouldn't
it be possible to just execute the init target, and then validate all the
other targets? this is effectively what happens if you have top level tasks.

Tim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bevan Arps [mailto:bevan.arps@actfs.co.nz]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 2:01 PM
> To: Ant Developers List; ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Ant2] Tasks as siblings of <target>
> 
> 
> At 09:39 31/10/2001 +0100, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> >Seems we have three options left that didn't receive any -1s:
> >
> >(1) All tasks (and types) can be placed into an <init> 
> construct which
> >is much like a target, but cannot have dependencies of its own.  All
> >targets depend on this one implicitly.  No tasks or types can be
> >siblings of target.
> 
> Just a thought from a satisfied Ant user ...
> 
> What about making this a proper target (ie no special syntax 
> or anything) 
> but have it identified in the project element.
> 
> ie something like this:
> 
> <project
>      name="myTestProject"
>      default="buildEverything"
>      initialise="getReady">
> 
> <target name="buildEverything">
> ...
> </target>
> 
> <target name="getReady">
> ...
> </target>
> 
> </project>
> 
> The "contract" could be simply that the initialise target always gets 
> executed first, reguardless of what other targets are invoked.
> 
> I don't think that there would be any need to restrict it 
> from having it's 
> own depends list - since an initialisation target could be 
> used to ensure 
> things are available, having a number of dependencies to 
> check for the 
> availability of files/classes/xxx could be useful.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bevan.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> "Programming is an Art Form that Fights Back"
> 
> Bevan Arps (<mailto:bevan.arps@actfs.co.nz>bevan.arps@actfs.co.nz)
> Senior OO Analyst, ACT Financial Systems
> 
> This communication  is confidential  to ACT  Financial  
> Systems  (Asia 
> Pacific)  and is intended for  use only by the  addressee.   
> The  views and 
> opinions  expressed in  this email  are the senders  own and do not 
> represent  the  views  and  opinions of  ACT  Financial  
> Systems  (Asia 
> Pacific).
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message