ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stefano Mancarella" <stefano.mancare...@caboto.it>
Subject Re: <import> and <path>s
Date Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:39:28 GMT
Dominique Devienne wrote:
>>Yeah, it should work. But I prefer to have a callable/complete
>>common.xml.
> I guess that strikes me as strange. I've designed at least 3
> quite large multiple-build-files Ant builds for mixed C/C++/Java
> projects using <import>, and the build files I import are never
> callable directly, by design.

I think it's just a different design.
In mine the "common" build file already contains everything I need for a 
typical project out of the box.
The purpose of the including build file is just to add/rewrite/extend 
custom stuff. For very basic projects it just adds a target to pack the 
build products. For very complex projects it can import several other 
xml files, which in this case can be (and usually are) "incomplete".

> I even write 'abstract' targets with just a <fail> insight
> indicating the importing build file should override the target,
> and the same can be done with <condition><isreference>+<fail>
> to have a friendly error message for IDs.

That's nice, but completely redundant.
I prefer to keep my build files shorter, as they are already definitely 
too long. But it's just a matter of taste, I think.
XML is powerful, but certainly not concise. ;-)

> Note that others have said similar things in the discussions
> leading to the addition of <import> to Ant, and I still don't
> get it. Oh well ;-) --DD

So you still don't get why the imported files should be valid (or should 
I say "well formed"?) build files, do you? ;)


Mime
View raw message