cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joerg Heinicke <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: cocoon-2.1/tools/src/anttasks
Date Sat, 13 Mar 2004 14:02:51 GMT
On 12.03.2004 14:29, Stephan Michels wrote:

> In the orginal form of the blocks-build.xsl, we had separate targets for
> the patch files. But it was incredible slow. Then I merge these targets
> to one target, and rewrote to the XConf task to a MatchingTask, which
> allow to execute more than one patches.
> But it doesn't preserves the dependencies, then Carsten cuts the target
> in to several target again, to solve this problem.
> Now, with latest change it works again.
> I tend to agree with you Joerg, separate targets are much more elegant.
> But in the real world I have real problems, like a build time von 4min
> 25sec on a 2.4GHz Intel system. Which is, by the way, unacceptable,
> So, should I revert the change to have a more elegant build file with
> bigger build time?! .... ehrmm ... I think not.

To be honest, such statements enrage me at least a bit. You talk about 
time, but you forget the time to maintain this additional dependency 
resolving. Starting with the missing .xweb patches you have now to go on 
searching for bugs - things that already have been working. For having a 
look on this issue I removed ojb, database and hsqldb block from the 
excluded ones. A simple build (Cocoon was previously built with only 
cforms and xsp enabled) - and many patches of those blocks were not 
applied. Only a clean build made it working - partly, see above. If I 
need to do every time a clean build to get this thing correctly working, 
I don't see how you can gain time. This might be only a simple bug 
somewhere, maybe only a typo - but I talk about the principle - which, I 
know, often ends in obstinacy.

IMO, yes, we should revert it. I prefer the elegancy much more about the 
speed. And to add Carsten's argument: Additionally it forces us "keeping 
the dependencies correct".

Excuse me, if I have forgotten to add 'rant' around it ...


View raw message