ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Frank W. Zammetti" <>
Subject Re: Ant dependencies task
Date Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:01:38 GMT
I do it that way for two reasons mainly:

(1) Many times during development I need to have certain tasks disabled, 
and sometimes what is enabled and disabled changes, and I find it easier 
to comment out an antcall as shown.

(2) It's a little more explicit in my mind as to what is happening and 
in what order.  I prefer to not let the runtime work things out for 
itself as much as possible, I prefer being able to tell exactly what is 
going to happen, and it feels like I can do that more this way.

I haven't been using Ant all that long frankly, I was previously a batch 
file guy :)  So I have not problem believing this isn't the "right" way 
to do things if that's what anyone wants to tell me... I know it works 
well for me though :)


Steve Loughran wrote:
> Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>> Hi again,
>> This did the trick, almost... there was one other piece to the 
>> puzzle... I had to add inheritRefs="true" to all the targets I 
>> antcall'd.  So, my main build target looks like:
>>   <target name="build">
>>      <get_dependencies />
>>      <antcall target="compile" inheritRefs="true" />
>>      <antcall target="make_javadocs" inheritRefs="true" />
>>      <antcall target="checkstyle" inheritRefs="true" />
>>   </target>
> why do you structure your build process this way. Surely it is easier 
> for each target to declare their dependencies and let the runtime work 
> it out for themselves.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Frank W. Zammetti
Founder and Chief Software Architect
Omnytex Technologies

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

View raw message