Return-Path: 
 <ant-dev-return-19553-qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-dev=jakarta.apache.org@jakarta.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@apache.org
Received: (qmail 94718 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2001 11:18:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Nov 2001 11:18:58 -0000
Received: (qmail 20977 invoked by uid 97); 12 Nov 2001 11:19:09 -0000
Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Received: (qmail 20961 invoked by uid 97); 12 Nov 2001 11:19:09 -0000
Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ant-dev-subscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
List-Id: "Ant Developers List" <ant-dev.jakarta.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" <ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Received: (qmail 20950 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2001 11:19:08 -0000
Message-Id: <200111121119.fACBJ6u14356@mail012.syd.optusnet.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
From: Peter Donald <donaldp@apache.org>
To: "Ant Developers List" <ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ant task with (nested) fileset(s)
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 22:16:10 +1100
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1]
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111091220540.23239-100000@localhost>
 <200111121050.fACAoBJ03747@mail008.syd.optusnet.com.au>
 <m3k7wwfdyu.fsf@bodewig.bost.de>
In-Reply-To: <m3k7wwfdyu.fsf@bodewig.bost.de>
X-Wisdom-Cookie: .
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 22:03, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Peter Donald <donaldp@apache.org> wrote:
> > Or are you saying that <apply /> is a better construct than
> > implementing the task properly ?
>
> Implementing which task properly?

any of them.

> <apply> saves you from writing a task in the gcc (or any similar
> transformation) case, it is a whole bunch of tasks in one - without a
> need for a custom task.

yer...

> For things like compiling C(++) sources, I'd certainly prefer a custom
> task with smart dependency checking and all that, but if my project
> contains three or four C files for my JNI stuff and the simple <apply>
> task is all I need, then why should I bother writing a task for it?

why not?

-- 
Cheers,

Pete

*------------------------------------------------------*
| Despite your efforts to be a romantic hero, you will |
| gradually evolve into a postmodern plot device.      |
*------------------------------------------------------*

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