ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jose Alberto Fernandez" <>
Subject Re: Ant 2 et al.
Date Wed, 10 Jul 2002 06:51:50 GMT
From: "Erik Hatcher" <>

> From: "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <>
> > IMHO it's better to use composition rather than inheritance, ie compose
> > common build parts in your builds, like Java use Java packages.
> I'm not entirely convinced of this yet, but I still need to ponder this
> some.
> Example:
> I want to "inherit" a common web app project and add, say, XDoclet
> generation of web.xml.
> > It's more a uses-a relationship rather than a is-a one.
> >
> > With imports you can modularize your builds.
> But I don't want to import all the pieces for every build.  I want to inject
> something into the dependency graph of an already pre-defined build.  How
> would that play out with imports?

What I think it should be very useful on large projects is to provide operations
simillar in their semantics to <xsl:include> and <xsl:import>.

The former works just like our current <import> proposal (I wish we rename it),
the latter provides for overriding of templates in XSLT and could provide 
overriding of targets in ANT. Which can give a major boost for writing generic
build-files for projects.

Any opinions about having something like that?

Jose Alberto

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

View raw message