lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Erik Hatcher" <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: jakarta-lucene build.xml
Date Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:29:48 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Otis Gospodnetic" <>

> I do think having defaults in build.xml and not is
> better than having defaults in and that using
> for overriding defaults instead of changing build.xml
> is better (simpler for people to do, less error prone, requires less
> knowledge).

I think there is some confusion.  *Never* have Jon or I suggested anything
about build.xml being edited.  It should *never* be edited by an end user
just simply wanting to build Lucene from source code.  The discussion is
over best practices: whether properties should be in the build.xml or  Neither of those should be edited by this end-user.
For someone to build and change the destination of the output, he/she would
simply create a (in both Jon and I's scheme) and set that
one property.  That is all.

> It would be good if others could share their opinions and votes, so
> that I can move things out of the half-baked state on build in the CVS
> repository.

Whats half-baked about it?  Properties are in build.xml now, right?  Is
there still a  That won't matter given that the properties
are the same value and Ant has property immutability.  But if is still there, I recommend just removing it or renaming
it.  And certainly Jon's scheme is fine if you choose do so - rename to, and remove the properties I added in
build.xml.  (keep in mind that I renamed a property or two so that the demo
WAR and my docweb WAR had unique descriptive properties).


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message