ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ciramella, EJ" <ECirame...@emptoris.com>
Subject RE: Trying to get rid of makefiles
Date Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:15:38 GMT
If you are going to propose a change like that, it's better to rely on
evolution not revolution to get you to where you need to be.  Instead of
arguments like "ANT is better, period", provide statistics that prove that
point.  Seconds to completion make VS ANT, lines of code needed to do a
complete build make VS ANT, etc.  I have a set of metrics that I pulled
together to illuminate the necessity to move to ANT.  With my company's
bat/make system, the build can ONLY be run on ONE machine.  With my ANT
"port" of this same system, you could theoretically run the build on any one
of the developer's machine when they go home.

I suggest this, prepare an ANT script and use it for the newest version of
your product (if you are supporting multiple builds).  Using the newest
build prevents hang ups along the way if no clients are using it.

Ping me directly if you would like that three page email on metrics of our
build system to use as a boilerplate for your own.

Remember; evolution, NOT revolution.

-----Original Message-----
From: Anderson, Robert H - MWT [mailto:Anderson.Robert@menlolog.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 8:11 PM
To: 'Ant Users List'
Subject: RE: Trying to get rid of makefiles


So they want to guarantee that all the classes are recompiled but they don't
want to delete the classes before compiling. You're right... that is
ridiculous. You should convince them that it is not a waste of time to
delete the class files before recompiling because it is the only way to
gaurantee that all the classes are being compiled. Or just stick with
makefiles ;)

-Rob A

-----Original Message-----
From: Leonardo Abreu de Barros [mailto:leobarros@email.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 4:02 PM
To: ant-user@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Trying to get rid of makefiles


Hi all,

I work in a company that has a long history using makefiles. Since I 
joined it, I proposed to migrate to Ant. Some people resist to 
changes, some people agree, as long as all benefits provided by the 
makefiles are covered by Ant.

I've already reproduced all behaviors but one: currently, all java 
classes names are declared explicitly in the makefile, and sent to 
the java compiler. It rebuilds all the class files, at each build. 

They want this behavior in order to detect broken code, due to 
changes on a base class, for example.

The problem is that Ant, specifically the <javac> task, only 
recompiles ".class" if the timestamp differs from the related ".java" 
file. I've read on documentation that to detect this kind of broken 
dependencies, you should perform "clean builds" from time to time.

I proposed this solution, but it wasn't accepted. They think it's a 
loss of time (even if it's ridiculous) to delete all ".class" files 
before calling the compiler. If I'm not able to reproduce this 
behavior with Ant, they prefer to keep the makefiles.

Does anyone have any idea of how I could reproduce this behavior 
using Ant? Any other possible solution?

Thanks in advance,
Leonardo Barros



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

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

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message