lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jon Scott Stevens <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: jakarta-lucene build.xml
Date Wed, 27 Feb 2002 04:23:46 GMT
on 2/26/02 7:45 PM, "Erik Hatcher" <> wrote:

> Agreed.  I would say that this is a good argument for getting rid of
> altogether.  Its not really needed, and anyone
> wanting to tweak anything would likely have the know-how to figure out which
> property they wanted to override by just looking at the top of build.xml.
> I don't disapprove of the way you recommend.  I think we can just chalk it
> up to a matter of preference.
> There are many projects that follow the pattern
> (Slide, Cactus, Commons, Struts, at least on my local perhaps slightly
> outdated codebases).

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

> I actually prefer no
> My argument against is that lazy folks would just edit
> properties there rather than figuring out that they could override them by
> creating a new file.  A developer is much less likely to touch build.xml,
> and would quickly (with a little bit of Ant know-how) see the override files
> available.

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

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

The (lazy) user shouldn't have to even look at the build.xml to figure out
what they should do to customize things. Doing so requires a (not so lazy)
knowledge of Ant and XML which they might not have.

Having them create their own to override the allows them to only look at a simple (lazy) properties
text file.

The argument of needing both a build.xml and doesn't
really fly with me. The user shouldn't even have to look at the build.xml


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

View raw message