ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From stephan beal <>
Subject Re: updated patch set
Date Fri, 22 Mar 2002 03:17:59 GMT
On Friday 22 March 2002 03:43, you wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "stephan beal" <>
> > Project.toBoolean():
> > If passed null, it now treats that as false. i hope that's not evil?
> -1
> Don't touch things like that until you're truly confident it won't break
> backwards compatibility.  In this case it likely would.

point taken. That's the only place where i'm not certain of compatibility.

> I agree with Diane on this.  We'll hold off reviewing for commit until this
> is done.  You may be able to reuse other pieces of Ant to implement the
> <command> sub elements, although not sure off what off the top of my head -
> check out tasks that execute other tools.

i think <exec> may work here. i don't want to do away with the cdata 
handling, though, because i already use it ;). My company's test server 
process goes like this:

1) developer develops. Commits his code. That generates a CVS mail.
2) developer fwds me the cvs mail (it has the version of each file he wants 
installed on the test server).
3) i run that through a script which generates cvs update commands.
4) <cvs>script's contents</cvs> does the work.

That's simple to automate. Consider automating:
  <arg value="up"/>
  <arg value="-r"/>
  <arg value="some/"/>
  <arg value="status"/>
  <arg value="some/other/"/>

i completely agree that it "fits the ant mould", i'll also be quick to point 
out that it's nearly impossible to 100% reliably automate the creation of 
such xml. i cannot imagine many uses for the above syntax when someone could 
just do:
<cvs command='up -r some/'/>
<cvs command='status some/other/'/>

(My patch is essentially just a foreach wrapper around this exact syntax.)

If you had to hand-write, or write code that would automate the generation of 
your xml, which of the two above syntaxes would you prefer to work with?

Of course, one possible middle ground could be:
<commandline value="up -r some/"/>
<commandline value="status some/other/"/>

That doesn't look too daunting, except for when you're generating your XML 
from perl/shell/makefiles: you'll have to care for proper quoting of the 
filenames (or web designers LOVE to use filenames with spaces in them). Seems 
more trouble than it's worth when you can simply dump it all in:

i agree, either of the above 3 fit the ant look and feel better than 
cdata=commands does, but you've gotta admit that my way's easier to automate 
code for ;), so i don't want to remove it, just offer a different syntax. i 
also plan on adding support for reading the command list from a file. The 
support exists in my "work copy", i just need to port it.

-----  - -
"Unix: the shell is your oyster."

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message