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 16:21:39 GMT
Dominique Devienne wrote:
>>I prefer to keep my build files shorter, as they are
>>already definitely too long.
> Mine are actually quite small now that I <import> all the
> common parts from a small set of 'abstract' build files.
> (and by 'abstract' I mean "meant to imported" as opposed
> to necessarily having 'abstract' targets).

Again, it depends on the definition of 'long'.

>>So you still don't get why the imported files should be valid
>>(or should I say "well formed"?) build files, do you? ;)
> Oh they are valid, as valid as a Java or C++ abstract class is.

That's not what I meant. I was implying the necessity to have an 
enclosing <project> element, instead of just a bunch of targets and top 
level tasks (like in the "entity includes" era).

> My experience is that the Template Method pattern goes
> a long way in making for better designs, in any language,
> be it C++, Java, or Ant (which is not a language per se).
> It is indeed a matter of taste, and I suspect different
> thresholds for what's elegant, and what's not ;-) --DD

I must say I'm quite satisfied with my current approach (until I find a 
better one, obviously), mainly because it makes me spend very little 
time each time I start a new project and it's also very scalable.
Elegance is important, but comes second to manageability.
Is it more important to go to a date in time or well dressed? Well, 
obviously both... unless the date is a deadline. ;-)
Anyway I don't we're talking about so different designs. If I understand 
correctly, mine could be seen as yours, but starting with a "Concrete 
class". That's all.


Mime
View raw message