ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Diane Holt <hol...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Parameterized "task-function"
Date Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:52:05 GMT
--- David Corbin <david.corbin@machturtle.com> wrote:
> Well, I can live with that, IFF it is in a single file...

I would rather it not be, actually. I prefer Jam's approach of allowing
"rules" files and keeping the buildfiles themselves exceedingly
uncomplicated to deal with. It's actually one of the drawbacks of Ant, for
me, that the buildfiles are so much "busier", and one which almost made me
not choose to go with it. For example, a Jam buildfile can be as simple
as:

Classes Foo Bar Baz ;

whereas the same thing expressed in an Ant buildfile is lots and lots of
XML code. True, once you get used to reading XML, it's not as daunting as
it first appears, but I would still prefer to have Ant buildfiles that are
as simple as the above example(*). I have always been of the opinion that
end-users of the build system shouldn't have to be exposed to the "bones"
of the system, and it's been my experience that most of them usually
prefer to not have to be -- the simpler things are at the level they need
to deal with it, the better.

(*)Although I'd be willing to compromise, and have something like:
     <javac files="foo, bar, baz">
       <classspath add="${jar.dir}/extrastuff.jar/>
     </javac>
   with all the other attributes/nested-elements defined with default
   values in a template in a template-file somewhere.
                 
Diane

=====
(holtdl@yahoo.com)



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Mime
View raw message