ant-ivy-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jing Xue <>
Subject Re: Why use retrieve + standard ant path creation over cachepath?
Date Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:12:38 GMT
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:59:41AM +0100, Dave wrote:
> In the Ivy documentation for the <ivy:cachepath> task, it suggests
> *"Please prefer the use of retrieve + standard ant path creation, which make
> your build more independent from ivy (once artifacts are properly retrieved,
> ivy is not required any more)."*
> Do most people follow this retrieve+ant practice? Cachepath worked well for
> me when a module + all of it's dependencies were resolved from the same
> location, but it had issues when the module was resolved from multiple
> repositories.

I used to do cachepath because it's obviously the easiest, but soon
became annoyed by the fact that even recompiling one changed class would
take 30 seconds to resolve to begin with.

So now my build script only resolves once, and then "retrieves" by
creating links to the artifacts in cache (to avoid the redundant copies).
During resolving, all classpaths for the configurations are recorded, so
that during regular (i.e. offline) builds they can be reconstructed
without having to run another resolve.

Jing Xue

View raw message