ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Hanif Ladha" <>
Subject Feasibility of using ANT...
Date Fri, 28 Jun 2002 22:16:59 GMT
Well perhaps feasibility is not the right word... Anyway, I would much
appreciate some advice.

I am in the process of replacing our in-house developed perl-script
based build system.  The major reason being that it does not meet the
developers needs and to make it so would require a re-write and the
current code set is a big bowl of spaghetti!  

We are developing a multi-platform solution.  Part of the solution runs
on a Windows platform (NT and Win2K) and the other on QNX.  We do have
some common utility and communication libraries that are used on both
platforms.  Apart from those libraries there is no other cross-platform
dependency.  All the Java development is targeted for Windows.  For QNX
we use C/C++.  There is also C++ stuff for Windows.

So the first questions is can ANT handle C/C++ modules effectively?  I
guess what I mean by effective is how make is able to compile/link C/C++

Our solution is deployed as follows:

A set of JAR files for JAVA
A set of executables with shared libraries and config (ini) files.

For QNX:
A set of executables and config files
A set of shared libraries

The above has resulted in a code repository resulting in a large number
of modules, some of which are shared libraries and others are
executables.  There is a high degree of dependency between the modules.

The developers would need the ability to build their own modules, do
checkouts (we use CVS), releases, generate docs (javadoc and doxygen),
etc.  In addition to that we want to continue doing our regular builds.
Here I am looking at something like Gump to help ANT.

So.... would you recommend ANT as an appropriate build management tool
for the above make-up?



To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message