"Remie Bolte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/11/2008 11:05:48 AM:
> Can you explain the concept of targets being able to add themselfs as
> dependencies?
> I can't really picture this :)
I wasn't involved in the definition of this so don't take my word as
gospel, but this is my understanding:
On 2008-11-11, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:21 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> after I've added include I'm not too sure about its name. What we
>> call "import" is called "extends" by EasyAnt and our "include" is
>> EasyAnt's "use".
On 2008-11-11, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally I would prefer supporting arbitrary
> attributes on targets.
That would be easy to do.
> This would be less specific to EasyAnt and could have mileage for
> other Ant extensions.
I read this as "I don't want the feature in core
On 2008-11-11, Remie Bolte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you explain the concept of targets being able to add themselfs as
> dependencies?
> I can't really picture this :)
You have one build file with something like
as a template for Java compilation. This one gets imported or
incl
Hi all--
A message for Matt:
I believe you've been trying to contact re some changes
to Ant 1.8, PropertyHelper, and possible (negative)
impact to antxtras.sf.net.
Sorry I've been nose-to-the-grindstone for several months
and haven't really been paying much attention to ant-dev.
Last I recall t
--- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> EasyAnt has a concept named "phase" which is some
> special sort of
> target. The main differences:
>
> * is always empty
>
> * its depends list is open for other targets to
> modify, i.e. targets
> may add themselves as dependenci
Hi,
Can you explain the concept of targets being able to add themselfs as
dependencies?
I can't really picture this :)
Cheers,
Remie
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> EasyAnt has a concept named "phase" which is some special sort of
> ta
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:25 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Without going into implementation details, do we want to add the
> concept itself to Ant's core?
+1 on the concept. Back in the days trying to design reusable builds
around Ant's import, this would have made my life tons
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:21 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> after I've added include I'm not too sure about its name. What we
> call "import" is called "extends" by EasyAnt and our "include" is
> EasyAnt's "use".
First, it's a good description of the consequences of the current a
-0 on the concept; my preference would be to let the function prove it's
usefulness in EasyAnt & move it into core later if it truly proves useful
-1 on the "phase" name
+1 on using "target-group" for the name
__
Le 11 nov. 08 à 11:49, Scheper, Erik-Berndt a écrit :
Well, 'qxo' is definitely not me (or I would know how to reproduce
IVYDE-130 ;-)
ok :)
And I agree with your comment on IVYDE-128. Personally I have
absolutely no need for this to be fixed.
I was just wondering what to do with the
OK, I consider the answer to be "no, let's keep them in Ant main."
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all,
EasyAnt has a concept named "phase" which is some special sort of
target. The main differences:
* is always empty
* its depends list is open for other targets to modify, i.e. targets
may add themselves as dependencies to a phase.
It has been suggested to rename "phase" to "target-gro
Hi all,
after I've added include I'm not too sure about its name. What we
call "import" is called "extends" by EasyAnt and our "include" is
EasyAnt's "use".
I will reproduce the "how is import different from include" section I
added to both manual pages to give you the full background. What
nam
On 2008-11-10, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right now I'm pretty close to simply add an "as" attribute to import,
> add "include" as an alias name for import and make the task behave
> differently when it is called as include.
Done.
The implementation differs from EasyAnt's and we
On 2008-11-11, Gilles Scokart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My experimentation has now taken the form of a project on source
> forge [1].
Looks interesting.
I'm not questioning your choice of sf.net, but I hopw you know that
Ant's sandbox is open for you as well.
Stefan
Well, 'qxo' is definitely not me (or I would know how to reproduce IVYDE-130 ;-)
And I agree with your comment on IVYDE-128. Personally I have absolutely no
need for this to be fixed.
I was just wondering what to do with these two issues as they are currently
part of the 2.0 roadmap.
One ot
Le 11 nov. 08 à 10:49, Scheper, Erik-Berndt a écrit :
Hi,
Declaring ivyde as beta seems fine to me. I don't have many problems
with the latest version.
What about IVYDE-128 and IVYDE-130? These are currently in the 2.0
roadmap.
Although I must say that I have no idea how to reproduce IVY
My experimentation has now taken the form of a project on source forge [1].
I currently have an ant task that validates that a compile path is minimal.
I plan to add a report that help to identify why a library is used,
add support to analyze runtime dependencies and integrate that with
maven.
Fo
Hi,
Declaring ivyde as beta seems fine to me. I don't have many problems with the
latest version.
What about IVYDE-128 and IVYDE-130? These are currently in the 2.0 roadmap.
Although I must say that I have no idea how to reproduce IVYDE-130. I certainly
have never seen anything like it.
R
On 2008-11-11, j2ee6610 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> what's resolveexecutable?
an attribute of the exec task.
> how do I set it?
http://ant.apache.org/manual/CoreTasks/exec.html
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECT
21 matches
Mail list logo
