> From: Jose Alberto Fernandez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > From: Dominique Devienne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For maybe a little use case, we have different types of > > tests, UNIT tests, GUI tests, DB tests, etc... each in its own target. > > > > The test target calls them all, by explicitly listing all the > > test types. I'd happily write depends="test-*" insteall of > > depends="test-UNIT, test-GUI, test-DB, ...". > > > > Hummm, this looks like a foreach to me. Or more exactly > using the new <for/> task of antcontrib (which I think it should be > candidate to the 3rd party task of the year award). > "Find all the target names into a property and then use for to execute > the antcalls: > > <for param="target" list="${test.targets}> > <sequential> > <antcall target="@{target}"/> > </sequential> > </for>
Hmmm, you have to pay the expense of an <antcall>, which is significant in speed but especially in memory, and then you must be careful of property/reference inheritance, and bypass the static target analysis. > I use a script to look at target names and get those of my interest. Thus you need a scripting language and bsf and write a script to look up target names... I'm not that fond of such a solution. > In other words, it seems all you may want to do can be done with > the available tasks. Without going to Perl-extremes, sometimes having multiple ways to do something is a good thing, especially when one way is in the fact very convoluted, requires lots of external tasks/code, and the other way is cleaner, faster, uses less memory, and is built-in without any external dependencies. Which is why I still favor this enhancement. --DD > > Anyways, maybe the patch writer would have a better use case ;-) > > Yeap. > > Jose Alberto --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
