ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Equivalent: <ant
Date Fri, 08 Jul 2011 16:03:34 GMT
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Perrier, Nathan <nperrier@ptc.com> wrote:
> Agreed, I try to use antcall as little as possible.  It also tends to
> eat up memory if you have a ton of antcall tasks in a large build
> framework.
>
> Macrodefs are a nice substitute, but they really need an "if/else"
> attribute.  I find that I often have targets that are just wrappers for
> macrodef or use antcontrib's if/else tasks to accomplish this.

Embedding some unit of work in a target that is conditionally executed
*is* the "Ant way" of doing things.  :)

Matt

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dominique Devienne [mailto:ddevienne@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 10:50 AM
> To: Ant Users List
> Subject: Re: Equivalent: <ant
>
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Perrier, Nathan <nperrier@ptc.com>
> wrote:
>> No, because antcall creates a new project underneath the hood, whereas
> runtarget (antcontrib task) does not.
>
> I would add that <runtarget> (and <antcall> as well in fact) goes
> against the Ant philosophy of having declarative builds using targets
> with proper dependencies between them, where by "dependencies" I mean
> that target just state their "requirements" and should not care when
> or in which order those requirements are fulfilled,  since that's the
> job of the "dependency manager" to analyze the graph of targets and
> order them such that each one runs only once and in the proper order,
> detecting circular references. Targets are not functions that one
> would call at will, leading to procedural as opposed to declarative
> builds. <macrodef> usage should eliminate the need for most
> <runtarget> usage and is preferred in general.
>
> In more practical terms, <antcall> does indeed create a new project
> (i.e. a new "scope"), which means that any property it sets will not
> be visible to the build that used <antcall>. <runtarget> does not
> create a new Project, so all properties set *are* visible to the
> "caller", and it achieves that via a loophole in Ant's API which is
> not plugged for backward-compatibility reasons.
>
> Using <antcall> and <runtarget> is IMHO a symptom of using Ant and
> builds with a wrong (procedural) mindset. I've created lots of large
> and complex builds in the past without any, so it's certainly not
> necessary to idiomatic Ant usage, although it remains quite popular to
> many :) My $0.02. --DD
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Steve Amerige [mailto:Steve.Amerige@sas.com]
>>
>> Are the two statements below equivalent?
>> <antcall target="doit" InheritRefs="true" />
>> <runtarget target="doit" />
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@ant.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@ant.apache.org
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message