ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dominique Devienne" <DDevie...@lgc.com>
Subject RE: <import> and <path>s
Date Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:08:25 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefano Mancarella [mailto:stefano.mancarella@caboto.it]
> 
> Dominique Devienne wrote:
> > Note that by putting the extension classpath before the <import>,
> > and removing the it from common.xml, this works fine, and has the
> > advantage of failing the build is the importing build file does
> > not declare a path with the required ID.
> 
> But it also makes the common build file incomplete until it is
imported
> by another build file, and it creates a mutual dependency between the
> two files.
> 
> > Kind of like having an 'abstract' path.
> > Granted, that's more a side effect than by design, far from being
> > either obvious or elegant, but it should work nonetheless (although
> > I didn't try it). --DD
> 
> 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 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.

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

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


Mime
View raw message