Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 18324 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2006 15:26:26 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Jul 2006 15:26:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 60488 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jul 2006 15:26:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 60442 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jul 2006 15:26:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 60431 invoked by uid 99); 1 Jul 2006 15:26:18 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Jul 2006 08:26:18 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of george.c.harley@googlemail.com designates 64.233.162.193 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.162.193] (HELO nz-out-0102.google.com) (64.233.162.193) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Jul 2006 08:26:17 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id i1so254926nzh for ; Sat, 01 Jul 2006 08:25:56 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=googlemail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=KsJ2RjFnu6aDxB3fd3CG9iKIl0k3hh9qFaNeVKKscunUlzYv8Aik2BhAavr7dJU4t/v8Et58pSGjUOvvdvicXEKaqM0YqAwYcHHWP2M9izMcniluiUEC9gZUF5Gk45ytKXGoEGBggz79H1cF/vfv7zeEQBtaJyRH0g7TB0QhjGk= Received: by 10.36.33.3 with SMTP id g3mr290405nzg; Sat, 01 Jul 2006 08:25:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.101? ( [82.19.112.8]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 10sm5066978nzo.2006.07.01.08.25.55; Sat, 01 Jul 2006 08:25:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <44A693FE.9060409@googlemail.com> Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 16:25:50 +0100 From: George Harley Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [classlib] build file stuff References: <002a01c69c93$4fe9b640$0b01a8c0@LITTLEGUY> In-Reply-To: <002a01c69c93$4fe9b640$0b01a8c0@LITTLEGUY> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Nathan Beyer wrote: > Occasionally I use make/build-tests.xml to access the 'gen-reports' target. > I only do this when I run a test from within a single module, instead of a > full test run. Maybe there is a better or easier way. > > -Nathan > > Hi Nathan, Maybe this isn't exactly what you mean, but running tests for a single module from the "top level" build.xml file (the one in enhanced/classlib) and setting the "build.module" property always runs the "gen-report" target at the end. e.g. to run just the nio tests and get an HTML report while working in enhanced/classlib directory ... > ant -lib depends\jars\junit_3.8.2\junit.jar -Dbuild.module=nio test ... and to build the nio jar and then run just the nio tests with an HTML report generated at the end ... > ant -lib depends\jars\junit_3.8.2\junit.jar -Dbuild.module=nio build test The build.module property means that I rarely have to venture out of the enhanced/classlib folder. Best regards, George >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mark Hindess [mailto:mark.hindess@googlemail.com] >> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 4:26 AM >> To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [classlib] build file stuff >> >> >> Matt, this sounds great to me. Thanks! I look forward to the JIRAs. >> >> I had a couple of things I was still thinking I'd change (descriptions >> in the top-level and module build.xml files was one of them). I was >> also wondering if it was better to use imports for the make/build-*.xml >> files since these are not supposed to be called directly any more. >> >> Aside: Does anyone still call these [make/build-*.xml] directly? If so, >> perhaps we need more top-level targets. >> >> I'm quite busy anyway so I'll hold off on my changes until you've had a >> good look at them. >> >> Regards, >> Mark. >> >> >> >> On 29 June 2006 at 8:56, Matt Benson wrote: >> >>> Now that I've (finally, thanks Gregory!) got the >>> classlib built I'd like to start playing with the Ant >>> buildfiles to apply some of the practices encouraged >>> with modern Ant versions, but possibly lesser-known to >>> old-school (aka "learned Ant 1.5.x or earlier") users. >>> The first thing I plan to do is remove s >>> wherever possible (which should be everywhere). >>> and run builds against other buildfiles; this >>> is sensible and the utility of it is obvious. >>> calls targets from a local (or imported) >>> buildfile, creating a new Project instance in the >>> process, a time- and memory-intensive process. In Ant >>> < 1.6 s could often be avoided by arranging >>> targets such that Ant's management of target depends >>> would take care of target interdependencies (the "Ant >>> way"); remained useful for when some >>> parameterizable set of tasks was needed. Ant 1.6 saw >>> the advent of which accomplished the >>> purpose of in (damn it) a cooler fashion, >>> without creating a new Project context. I joined Ant >>> right after the release of 1.6, and was myself daunted >>> by macros; I put off learning them until such time as >>> I couldn't claim I had anything else to do... but the >>> transition from antcalls to macros was painless. The >>> "rightness" of this feature has never been challenged; >>> macros have become a new and shiny facet of the "Ant >>> way" IMHO. >>> >>> That may have turned a little religious, but I took >>> the time to write it, so it stands. :) Anyway, my >>> point is that antcalls are evil and that a combination >>> of target restructuring and macros can remove all but >>> the very stubbornest of them (I can't even remember >>> offhand what kind of situation leaves no alternative). >>> Here are the (IMO minimal) tradeoffs, for the sake of >>> allowing folk to voice any concerns: >>> >>> -When you are calling a target with an , but >>> you also want it to be available as an atomic target >>> of its own, that suggests the antcall should be >>> accomplished with target restructuring. To some this >>> might make the build seem more complex. In this >>> example: >>> >>> >>> foo >>> >>> >>> bar >>> >>> the "foo" target would become: >>> >>> >>> foo >>> >>> Now, I consider this "complication" of the buildfile >>> minimal, but I'm used to looking at such things. >>> >>> aside: the minus target naming, as some users may >>> know, is an old Ant trick that prevents a target from >>> being called from the command line due to the fact >>> that it is interpreted as a switch by Ant main. This >>> is of lesser value as Eclipse, as a handy IDE example, >>> does allow a user to directly run what is--by >>> convention only--considered an inner or private >>> target. I could have named it "innerfoo" for example. >>> Before we completely abandon the concept of inner >>> targets, let me mention that it might be a good idea >>> to always set descriptions on those targets intended >>> for user consumption, as in native-src/build.xml . >>> This causes Ant's -p/-projecthelp to display only >>> these targets, hopefully making the task of using a >>> new buildfile less onerous for a newcomer. In >>> contrast, classlib's top-level build.xml does not make >>> use of target descriptions. >>> >>> When you are simply using a target as a container for >>> a group of tasks, and the target itself is not meant >>> for public consumption, that suggests the target would >>> be better defined as a macrodef. And to be quite >>> honest, I'm having a hard time thinking of anything >>> negative to say about macrodefs. They really don't >>> make your buildfile any more complicated or anything >>> else.... ! Oh, well! :) >>> >>> If anyone is still with me after this tome, my purpose >>> has been to elicit comment of any qualms anyone has, >>> particularly with regard to target/dependency >>> restructuring, before I start submitting JIRA issues >>> to remove s. >>> >>> -Matt >>> >>> __________________________________________________ >>> Do You Yahoo!? >>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >>> http://mail.yahoo.com >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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 >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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