ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dominique Devienne <DDevie...@lgc.com>
Subject RE: ant 1.5.4 : Import
Date Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:23:22 GMT
I don't disagree with your scenario in the sense that it would break, but I
disagree that it's either a good usage of import or desirable.

I (strongly again ;) believe that imported build files should be designed to
be imported, and never used without being imported. I would even be
favorable (but I might be the only one) to add an attribute to <project>
that was required the be import-able, and would render that build non-usable
directly.

This way, you eliminate any possible confusion. --DD

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Conor MacNeill [mailto:conor@cortexebusiness.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 10:23 AM
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: Re: ant 1.5.4 : Import
> 
> > I'm interested to hear about use bases that would refute my argument on
> the
> > other hand, to see what I missed. Thanks, --DD
> >
> 
> Say I have build B importing C and I'm using B quite happily.
> 
> Then one day, I create A to import B and the import in B of C no longer
> works
> because B had a basedir setting. That would surprise me.
> 
> The above scenario assumes that we are taking basedir into account in the
> B->C
> case, which is not what option (2) is about. But option(2) makes
> resolution
> of import names not follow the same rules as every other Ant task (i.e.
> taking into account project basedir).
> 
> I guess I can live with (2). Basedirs are not that common anyway, and
> having
> import outside that framework is OK.
> 
> Conor

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org


Mime
View raw message