lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Erik Hatcher" <li...@ehatchersolutions.com>
Subject Re: cvs commit: jakarta-lucene build.xml
Date Wed, 27 Feb 2002 04:41:38 GMT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Scott Stevens" <jon@latchkey.com>

> Notice that you mention projects which have been influenced by Craig's
build
> system "ideas". :-)

Hey, I'm not pro-build.properties.sample either!  :)  It was my suggestion
to migrate from everything in build.properties.  Take it as an "incremental
refactoring"!

> If we can get more projects to use a standard of having people create
their
> own 'build.properties' then that isn't an issue.

Thats one of my main goals in life - and the instigator of this discussion.

> IMHO, build.xml shouldn't contain any properties that should be overridden
> by the user.

There shouldn't be any properties that *should* be overridden.  Only if they
*want* to.

> Having them create their own build.properties to override the
> default.properties allows them to only look at a simple (lazy) properties
> text file.
>
> The argument of needing both a build.xml and default.properties doesn't
> really fly with me. The user shouldn't even have to look at the build.xml
> *ever*.

There is indeed much merit to these ways.

In some of my work/personal projects I actually use &properties; as an
entity reference and include the properties snippet in from an external
file, which has the <property file="..."/> stuff so that all my sub-projects
automatically have all the general and project specific property stuff
defined.  It seems silly to always have build.src=src in a
default.properties, or would you place this particular one in build.xml
since it shouldn't be overridden?

Anyway, we're way off topic for lucene-dev.  I'm merely making suggestions
for my preferences and best practices and believe your suggestions are
excellent and that our differences are mostly stylistic.  Ant has its share
of "issues", not the least of which is standardization of this kind of
thing.  I do feel there needs to be more in the way of standardization of
these things: target names, directory structure, how properties are loaded,
etc. There was a great thread on an Alexandria e-mail list about build.xml
standards quite a while ago which brought up a lot more of these kinds of
issues.  I'm not sure a consensus was ever reached - the goal, at least, was
to document those standards and publicize them - I don't think it ever
happened or at least it didn't get distributed widely.

    Erik



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message