ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexey Solofnenko <alex...@mdli.com>
Subject RE: cvs commit: jakarta-ant WHATSNEW
Date Tue, 30 Apr 2002 00:17:46 GMT
Hello,

  the task <do> is what I need in my build files and it is not clear how
<do> bypasses dependency checking more than <antcall>? They do not check for
already executed dependencies at all.

- Alexey.

--
{ http://trelony.cjb.net/   } Alexey N. Solofnenko
{ http://www.inventigo.com/ } Inventigo LLC
Pleasant Hill, CA (GMT-8 usually)

-----Original Message-----
From: Conor MacNeill [mailto:conor@cortexebusiness.com.au]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 5:12 PM
To: Ant Developers List
Subject: RE: cvs commit: jakarta-ant WHATSNEW

-1.

Sorry for missing the discussion but I have been on leave (Anzac day holiday
in Oz).

I am quite concerned about this task. It introduces another mechanism for
running targets, in addition to <antcall>, which I'm not sure we really
need. It just seems to be such a hack to bypass the dependency processing.
The potential interactions with other "calling" mechanisms are problematic.

The implementation based on a static hashtable of target names has many
problems.

I have attached a zip with two cases illustrating how the <do> task fails
when interacting with both <antcall> and <ant>. In both cases I can execute
a target with a property not being set where you would expect, based on
dependencies, that property to be set.

Improvements could probably be made to pass these two cases but, overall, I
believe it is wrong to bypass the dependency mechanism.

Conor



--
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