ant-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bugzi...@apache.org
Subject DO NOT REPLY [Bug 46780] <target>'s condition check is wrong
Date Sun, 01 Mar 2009 01:30:08 GMT
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46780


alekseyig@hotmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|INVALID                     |




--- Comment #2 from alekseyig@hotmail.com  2009-02-28 17:30:06 PST ---
Matt,

>>>... this behavior has been intact in Ant for many years...
yes, I know it, but it does not make it right. 

Of cause, I oversimplified the case to make it clear what I am talking about.
Let me complicate it a lit bit more so you can see why I still think it is
wrong behavior and may be you can give me a solution for my problem.

Lets say I have many independent targets: target1, target2, ... targetN, and
they all do different but not simple tasks. Lets say I what to have combination
of them depending on some conditions, so I have the following:

<target name='first' depends='target1, target3, target4' if='some.condition1'>
  <echo> in first </echo>
</target>

<target name='second' depends='target1, target3, target5' if='some.condition2'>
  <echo> in second </echo>
</target>

<target name='third' depends='target3, target5' if='some.condition.3'>
  <echo> in third </echo>
</target>
...

Do you see what I mean?
In such case, what would be the right approach to have different sets of
targets called in different conditions? <antcall> is what I have, __but__ I do
not want to use it, because it is evil. It does not keep  track of dependencies
(you can create indefinite loop of targets using it :( )

Thank you.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.

Mime
View raw message