harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Hindess <mark.hind...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] Simplifying the ant files?
Date Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:23:48 GMT

On 16 June 2006 at 6:37, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> Mark Hindess wrote:
> > 
> > 3) Currently the 'build' target automatically does a 'clean'.  I think
> > this dependency should be removed and a new target - 'dist' perhaps? -
> > should be created for doing non-incremental builds.
> > 
> > [Geir has already fixed the first part of this since I started writing
> > this.]
> 
> I don't like "dist" - to me that's been traditionally reserved for
> making a distribution (funny that...).

dist was just the first thing I thought of but you are correct it isn't
quite right.

> Maybe "rebuild"?

That would do.

> > 4) Also at the module level, I think we should compress the two layers
> > of make/build.xml and make/common/build.xml.  For one thing it is very
> > confusing, that:
> > 
> >   a) modules/auth/make/common/build.xml builds the platform-specific
> >      java code, and
> > 
> >   b) modules/luni/make/platform seems to be related to what we've been
> >      calling native code not about platform-specific java code.
> > 
> > It would be crazy to separate building of platform-specific and
> > platform-independent java code because we'll only have problems
> > handling dependencies and it would mean a lot of duplication.
> > 
> > Even if we renamed 'platform' to native, I still don't think the
> > separate build.xml is needed since all it would ever do - in the near
> > future when we start moving the native code - is call straight out to
> > a makefile (or configure or whatever) so I don't think this extra
> > layer would add much.
> 
> I lazily decided not to parse this, but I've been w/ you so far so I'm
> sure it's fine.

Don't blame you. ;-)

> But please...  Please...  Please....
> 
>   s/hy/harmony/

I'll let you and Tim argue that one. /me lights touch paper and runs ;-)

> > 8) Running "ant -f make/build.xml" from a module sub-directory doesn't
> > actually clean the main compiled classes. 
> 
> As it shouldn't IMO..

Sorry I wasn't clear on this. I was thinking:

  <delete failonerror="false">
    <fileset dir="${hy.build}"
             includesfile="${hy.nio}/make/patternset.txt" />
  </delete>

which is to say, delete the things that this module created.

> > (I think this is pretty
> > important to getting consistent expected behaviour so I'm looking at
> > this right now and will fix it shortly unless anyone shouts.)

And now I have a patch ready to go in.

> > Well, these are some of the things that are bothering me.  I suspect
> > others have other issues?
> 
> Yes.  It bugs me to no end that "build" isn't where we keep build
> stuff.  It may simply be because I've hung around Jakarta and related
> too long, but the convention I'm used to is "build" is where build
> stuff goes (don't use "make") and "target" is the created directory
> where the build churn happens.

When I was looking at the commons projects I'm sure there was a mixture
of both build and target for built artifacts.  I'm easy.  (Tim:
specifically about this not in general. ;-p )

> This really is an aesthetic rather than technical argument, and so
> I've kept my mouth shut until now, but I've decided to come out on
> this one here... :)

I've never been very good at "keeping my mouth shut", I really don't no
how people manage it. ;-)

Regards,
 Mark.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message