gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <>
Subject Re: Xindice: a final suggestion
Date Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:50:32 GMT
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> As some of you might have noticed, Xindice is failing again, this time 
> on a wicked part: in order to keep the build clean, a fileset of jars is 
> specified at a project level and reused further on during the build: 
> classpaths are set using this fileset and the fileset itself is used to 
> configure the lib dir on the <war> task.
> Now, Gump build is just fine, but packaging fails because the latest Ant 
> *from CVS* expects a <zipfileset> as the parameter of the war/lib 
> element, while we just have a <fileset>. Even more:  the *current* 
> (stable) release of Ant supports only <fileset>at a project level, not 
> <zipfileset>, so I cannot change the build file to accomodate the new 
> ANT expected settings.
> Now, this is exactly the problem that Gump is supposed to anticipate, 
> but what would be the best solution?
> 1. tell Gump not to build the war (ugly workaround from a Gump POV);
> 2. upgrade our Ant version to the CVS one (somehow scary);
> 3. have a less maintainable build file removing the fileset and 
> duplicating the list (ugly workaround from an Xindice POV);
> 4. don't use the war task altogether and roll back to the <jar> one 
> (don't like it);
> 5. Bug the Ant developers so that they rollback the change to the War 
> task, accepting also plain filesets as it was in the past: this sounds 
> like the best solution to me since it was them to introduce a backward 
> incompatible change (but I'm sure it was for a reason).
> I'm kinda stuck. Suggestions?

Initial reaction: #5 also seems best to me.  See the "cross-project 
breakages" section of the following:

Most of all, what Gump is designed to do is to actually get people to talk.

- Sam Ruby

View raw message