Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org>
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: failonerror; general solution
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:03:55 +0100
Message-ID: <747F247264ECE34CA60E323FEF0CCC0C0F513B@london.cellectivity.com>
Thread-Topic: failonerror; general solution
Thread-Index: AcOOWCtDefZMz3lgRMusCaI/SYQS+AAAjixg
From: "Jose Alberto Fernandez" <jalberto@cellectivity.com>
To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org>

So are you saying that instead of having access to generic
things in ANT that anyone can use, we should prefer having
every user defining it own little dialect with his own little tasks
for minor things that everybody needs. (I.e., I do not think
anybody denies the need for doing things conditionally on the build).

I find this very strange.=20

I have my own tasks too, but this are tasks for our inhouse code =
generator
and such which are specific to our environment (so I am not afraid to
define them), I also have my own <forall/> tasks which works diferent
than the <foreach/> of antcontrib. But why you want every user to
reinvent <if>, etc. It makes no sense to me. (At the end we get=20
enhancement request after enhancement request, for ways of doing things
that can be done using this simple tasks, efficiently.

I do not think the aim of ANT is to require people to write java code
for every other thing they need in their build. The point of ANT and
ANTLIB in particular is to provide reusable tasks that anyone can use.
If you do not like a certain group of tasks, well do not use them, but
that does not mean vetoeing anyone else to use them.

And as I have said several times now, I am not asking for them
to be added to core, I an just asking them to be shippen as a
useful antlib that people can use in their builds, if they want.

Jose Alberto
PS: I am so tired of the "ANT should not be a scripting language" tabu
when in reality it is, just like MAKE or any other description language
that gets executed. ANT is not a procedural language, that I agree, but =
it is a script.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Emmanuel Feller [mailto:Emmanuel.Feller@free.fr]=20
> Sent: 09 October 2003 12:26
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: Re: failonerror; general solution
>=20
>=20
> Hello,
>=20
> I not agree on all ...
>=20
> The <if/> is not a good thing, and especially in big builds.
> My builds are quite comlex and I reduce complexity by=20
> developping my own tasks : this is the official way and
> (IMHO) should be promoted. I developped wrapper around=20
> conditionnal things but now I have access to macro by=20
> <macrodef/>, and I think i will refactor my build around=20
> this. So i think than the <if/> has no place in ANT any more,=20
> if it could had one. The same things for <foreach/>.
>=20
> I think than Ant 1.6 is a quite revolution (cleaner ways,=20
> simpler ways), so i do not want it to be misunderstood.(In My=20
> Humble Opinion)
>=20
> I use the try/catch, and it could be shipped but I do not
> want that it convince newbies than Ant is a scripting=20
> framework. It is a real danger.
>=20
> For the propertyCopy, i use it a lot, but i am searching a=20
> cleaner way to do it. On this i do not have an opinion.
>=20
> Emmanuel
> ----- Message d'origine -----=20
> De : "Jose Alberto Fernandez" <jalberto@cellectivity.com>
> =C0 : "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org>
> Envoy=E9 : jeudi 9 octobre 2003 12:59
> Objet : RE: failonerror; general solution
>=20
>=20
> To tell you the truth I think that the 5(?) tasks of
> antcontrib are just a necesity if you try to write
> large ANT scripts that must be maintainable by more than one person.
>=20
> The <if/> task helps reduce the amount of temporary
> variables ant
> special init-targets and intermediate targets whose only
> need is to
> check for a property being set or not.
>=20
> <trycatch/> speaks for itself.
>=20
> In my builds, at least, <foreach/> is a necesity, since many
> of my
> modules
> must be build several times with different configuration=20
> parameters. And the number of configurations is configurable.
>=20
> The other ones, <propertycopy> and others are just good.
>=20
> This is why I think we should ask for permission to ship it
> as an
> antlib.
> It will serve as an example of the power of the framework.
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gus Heck [mailto:gus-antdev@cognition.olin.edu]
> > Sent: 08 October 2003 19:58
> > To: Ant Developers List
> > Subject: Re: failonerror; general solution
> >
> >
> >
> > >I'm not as eager to see the tasks in Ant proper as
> others,
> > that's why I
> > >haven't taken any initiative here (in Apache speak,
> that's the
> > >difference between my +0 and the +1s that have been cast
> by others).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Are we talking about all ant-contrib tasks or just
> try/catch?
> > I thought
> > just try/catch...
> >
> > -Gus
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
> >
> >
>=20
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
>=20
>=20

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