ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From __matthewHawthorne <>
Subject Re: Trying to get rid of makefiles
Date Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:07:23 GMT
I took a quick look and couldn't find anything, unfortunately. 

I suggest you inform your co-workers that the rest of the universe is 
using ant to build their java projects.  In a way, ant was created 
because of  make's problems.  Point them to some documentation and maybe 
they will see that industry (not company) standards are the way to go.

Leonardo Abreu de Barros wrote:

>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:
>For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message