Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 5518 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2002 14:21:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Mar 2002 14:21:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 19337 invoked by uid 97); 27 Mar 2002 14:21:54 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 19319 invoked by uid 97); 27 Mar 2002 14:21:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 19299 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2002 14:21:53 -0000 Message-ID: <3CA1D6C0.3080605@cortexebusiness.com.au> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 01:27:12 +1100 From: Conor MacNeill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20011226 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en-au MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ant Developers List Subject: Re: ant bug or user error? References: <20020326164012.39547.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Paul Kilroy wrote: > > >>I get the following error when I run "ant foo moo": >>BUILD FAILED >>/home/pkilroy/antbug/build.xml:4: You must specify the >>jar file to create! >> > > An Ant bug IMHO. > Agreed. This bug arises from the tendency of many tasks to change, in their execute method, the state setup by the core using IntrospectionHelper. In this case it is the cleanup() method of Zip.java. In fact the cleanup method was changed as part of bug 4366 http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4366 I'm not sure I understand the original bug report but it is probably a symptom of the same problem, the changing of the filesets in the execute() method. The fix, however, almost guarantees that the instance cannot be reused. > >>I think the is related to the fact that ant caches >>targets (and their tasks), but the task is "cleaned >>up" at the end of the execute method. This pretty much >>invalidates the cache for the target. >> > > Yes. > Well, this task cleans itself up (kills itself really) but the core does not do any general task cleanup. > >>-Don't run the target again, it's already been run. >> > > or alternatively, don't use cached tasks. These two statements amount to the same thing, in general, don't they? > > We've always said that "ant foo moo" is supposed to be the same as > "ant foo; ant moo" which it obviously is not. > This has never really been true that these are equivalent due to property immutability. In fact I know some builds that rely on this behaviour to setup different modes of operation. I think that we need to perhaps examine how all tasks preserve their state as I'm sure this is not limited to the Zip task. Conor -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: