Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-ant-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 53435 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2009 17:27:43 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Jun 2009 17:27:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 1543 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jun 2009 17:27:54 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ant-user-archive@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 1479 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jun 2009 17:27:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Users List" Reply-To: "Ant Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list user@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 1469 invoked by uid 99); 15 Jun 2009 17:27:53 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:27:53 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of qazwart@gmail.com designates 74.125.92.146 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.92.146] (HELO qw-out-1920.google.com) (74.125.92.146) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:27:44 +0000 Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so1963239qwf.10 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:27:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=DSxH+VbFgjZH9wAOCTRcqjZ6n9kCurILnRGPmx77tJc=; b=xd2fqa/KfJLWJJm+DK8v35dgjt5tFSolpJ7gMLYqvLP1+SNiK7SUnrFOSUez25nWRl inwHj7GhCCIcKOqKEOZUMUI3He3RbegbDKk4c81fZMH3QXmVIqSNSQ/ztafufCuKK9mb st1RlgghG7VaGJfmKmB819asQ1hscqvDFbrT0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=phtH5xxsL9upWzP4wz28VenrpyrcTW3FASchQVYOnjMCu0OfZd9Fl/4GVvRopbtQxQ lMrrIQFV/oigQl43zEt/S/Va/AZlUs8jL0Csq03VE0x5dbRenXjPeQ59Jdl1bjGdfx/h XbtegjcnhNXq9O+sy2UAAgQOzDOmYesI5UZjE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.2.65 with SMTP id 1mr7455783qai.255.1245086843281; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:27:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <34721A41A7BCF54ABC3B116219A8C1C2057B68A2A8@NP1EXCH012.corp.halliburton.com> References: <34721A41A7BCF54ABC3B116219A8C1C2057B68A2A8@NP1EXCH012.corp.halliburton.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:27:23 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: ANT enhancements From: David Weintraub To: Ant Users List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175cd65e02206f046c665ff0 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --0015175cd65e02206f046c665ff0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You might be interested in the AntContrib package. This package allows you to include full if/else logic inside a target without having to define a separate targets. The big disadvantage of AntContrib is that you have to install it in addition to Ant. Yes, AntContrib is just a single Jarfile, but it's an extra step that many developers simply don't do, and then want to know why your Ant script doesn't work. Ant Contrib also contains all sorts of nice to have tasks (such as try/throw, forloops, Take a look at . On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Shawn Castrianni < Shawn.Castrianni@halliburton.com> wrote: > Sometimes I wrestle with ANT target depends. Sometimes I like that any > dependent target runs even if the current target will not because of an > if/unless condition. Sometimes, I don't. I think the if/unless > functionality on a target should be increased: > > 1. Allow full boolean expressions to be evaluated for if/unless target > conditions. I already have a property with a value inside, why make me > convert it into yet another property where the value is irrelevant but that > is or is not set to be used in an if/unless condition? Why make me create > another target that this target is dependent on just to perform the boolean > logic and conversion into this new property when the if/unless could perform > the evaluation directly? > 2. Make some new attributes on target that perform an if/unless condition > on the current target AS WELL AS its dependent targets. Why make me add > duplicate if/unless conditions all the way up the hierarchy for all of the > dependent targets just to prevent them from executing as well? What if > those dependent targets already have if/unless conditions, then I must > perform even more work since if/unless conditions do not support full > boolean expressions? (See #1) > > > --- > Shawn Castrianni > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and > privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any > review, use, distribution, or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. > If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive information > for the intended recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > delete all copies of this message. > -- David Weintraub qazwart@gmail.com --0015175cd65e02206f046c665ff0--