Return-Path: <anonymous@nagoya.betaversion.org>
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@ant.apache.org
Received: (qmail 2038 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2003 16:10:57 -0000
Received: from exchange.sun.com (192.18.33.10)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Mar 2003 16:10:57 -0000
Received: (qmail 15289 invoked by uid 50); 27 Mar 2003 16:12:45 -0000
Date: 27 Mar 2003 16:12:45 -0000
Message-ID: <20030327161245.15287.qmail@nagoya.betaversion.org>
From: bugzilla@apache.org
To: dev@ant.apache.org
Cc: 
Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 18391]  -
    RFE: ignoreMissingBuildFiles option for subant
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18391>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18391

RFE: ignoreMissingBuildFiles option for subant





------- Additional Comments From gus.heck@olin.edu  2003-03-27 16:12 -------
I was thinking about this on the drive to and from work and it seems that subant
class clearly was intended to support specifying a directory that contained a
build.xml as well as specifying the build file explicitly. There is some work
done to append the antfile to non-file path elements. Specifically this:

         for (int i=0; i<count; ++i) {
            File file = new File(filenames[i]);
            if (file.isDirectory()) {
                file = new File(file, antfile);
            }
            execute(file);
         }

Since the task clearly is meant to support the use of directories, I think it is
a good idea to give the users some control over how it handles missing build
files. Alternately, one might decide that it is clearer if the task only works
when the build file is specified and directories should always fail. I have a
build working, now and it could be conducted either with dirsets and my patch or
using Dominique's fileset method. It would be nice to know if I need to switch
to the fileset method or not.

My personal bias tends to be toward giving the user multiple options (so long as
it doesn't lead to confusion or really messy practices). If there are multiple
ways to do the same thing, a wider array of individuals will find that their
first instinct on how to acomplish something is correct. To me this is what
user-friendliness is all about :). I don't think my patch is large enough to
raise perfomance issues, so I am still hoping it gets applied.