ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kev Jackson <kevin.jack...@it.fts-vn.com>
Subject Re: <javadoc>'s packagenames attribute
Date Tue, 21 Feb 2006 05:00:41 GMT

>This leads to the situation that if you point to your source tree and
>don't provide any patterns for packages, Ant will claim you hadn't
>specified any sources or packages at all.  This has been that way
>since, well, ever.
>
>I think we could do better and at least one person filing a bug
>reports seems to agree.  The options I see:
>
>(1) better document that package patterns are required if you only
>point to the source hierarchy.  This is the fully backwards compatible
>option.
>
>  
>
I think that if there are any changes, updating the doc to let people 
know that the default (old behaviour) is that the package name is expected

>(2) If no patterns have been specified at all, implicitly assume
>packagenames="*" and match all packages that have been found.  This is
>not backwards compatible since builds that have been breaking prior to
>that change would suddenly start building.
>
>  
>
At the moment, this is a relatively minor change - either set the 
packagenames="*" as a default value, or change the current 
checking/validation.

>I don't see much danger in this type of backwards incompatibility (and
>thus prefer option 2) but wanted to gather some feedback before
>enabling it.
>  
>
If broken builds start building, do you actually think we'll get hassle 
from people seeing different behaviour than expected/documented?  
Technically it's a BWC problem, but in reality its relaxing the 
restrictions and I think that we should do this to make peoples lives 
easier (have to type less)

my 2p

Kev

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


Mime
View raw message