Re: references: backwards compatibility

2006-10-18 Thread Steve Loughran
Dominique Devienne wrote: Ok, I will get my id reference stuff ready. I do not think that we need a commandline arg or a property, the only thing that is needed is a warning like DD's Warning: Reference y has not been set at runtime, but was found during build file parsing, attempting to resolve

Re: references: backwards compatibility

2006-10-17 Thread Joe Schmetzer
On Tue, 17 October, 2006 5:24 pm, Dominique Devienne wrote: >> > BC is important to me, but when keeping BC means breaking my least >> > surprises motto, then BC is not my friend any more ;-) --DD >> >> I am afraid that ant has a lot of surprises! > > And this is bad. That's why Ant is difficult to

Re: references: backwards compatibility

2006-10-17 Thread Dominique Devienne
[...], a copy of the UE will be executed and the "real" object [...] I guess this is where the difference really is. The implementation on how the 'static' reference is resolve is now safer, yet at the user level, the behavior remains the same, with just a new warning thrown in. I wanted us to

Re: references: backwards compatibility

2006-10-17 Thread Peter Reilly
On 10/17/06, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, I will get my id reference stuff ready. > I do not think that we need a commandline arg or a property, the > only thing that is needed is a warning like DD's > > Warning: Reference y has not been set at runtime, but was found during

Re: references: backwards compatibility

2006-10-17 Thread Dominique Devienne
Ok, I will get my id reference stuff ready. I do not think that we need a commandline arg or a property, the only thing that is needed is a warning like DD's Warning: Reference y has not been set at runtime, but was found during build file parsing, attempting to resolve. Future versions of Ant ma

Re: references: backwards compatibility

2006-10-17 Thread Steve Loughran
Peter Reilly wrote: On 10/17/06, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > what do other people think? I'm with Steve here. We need a way to get around broken build files of projects you want to build but don't own. I don't care

Re: references: backwards compatibility

2006-10-17 Thread Peter Reilly
On 10/17/06, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > what do other people think? I'm with Steve here. We need a way to get around broken build files of projects you want to build but don't own. I don't care much whether it is a

Re: references: backwards compatibility

2006-10-16 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > what do other people think? I'm with Steve here. We need a way to get around broken build files of projects you want to build but don't own. I don't care much whether it is a property (would be in line with other things we've introd

Re: references: backwards compatibility

2006-10-16 Thread Dominique Devienne
I would make it a non-failing warning for ant1.7, maybe an error in 1.8. I can see where you are coming from, but I disagree on accepting the old build files, or at least not without a --keep-old-broken-behavior switch on the command line, instead of yet another magic property. --DD --

Re: references: backwards compatibility

2006-10-16 Thread Steve Loughran
Peter Reilly wrote: On 10/16/06, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > WARNING: reference y has not been set, attempting to resolve > > [echo] y is C:\Documents and Settings\reilly\learning\a\refs\build.xml I really think we should break BC here, with a good error message. Keepi

Re: references: backwards compatibility

2006-10-16 Thread Antoine Levy-Lambert
Hi Dominique, this sounds like a good idea. Regards, Antoine Original-Nachricht Datum: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:58:58 -0500 Von: "Dominique Devienne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> An: "Ant Developers List" Betreff: Re: references: backwards compatibility > &

Re: references: backwards compatibility

2006-10-16 Thread Peter Reilly
On 10/16/06, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > WARNING: reference y has not been set, attempting to resolve > > [echo] y is C:\Documents and Settings\reilly\learning\a\refs\build.xml I really think we should break BC here, with a good error message. Keeping the old behavior wou

Re: references: backwards compatibility

2006-10-16 Thread Dominique Devienne
WARNING: reference y has not been set, attempting to resolve [echo] y is C:\Documents and Settings\reilly\learning\a\refs\build.xml I really think we should break BC here, with a good error message. Keeping the old behavior would re-open the bug about the not-defined-at-runtime ref being us

Re: references: backwards compatibility

2006-10-16 Thread Peter Reilly
On 10/16/06, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think some kind of property ant.policy.references.inline or something > could be set to turn on old behaviour We've somehow never done it, but maybe we should have a version attribute on , and increment it whenever we introduce a BC

Re: references: backwards compatibility

2006-10-16 Thread Dominique Devienne
I think some kind of property ant.policy.references.inline or something could be set to turn on old behaviour We've somehow never done it, but maybe we should have a version attribute on , and increment it whenever we introduce a BC breaking change? I'm not sure it's practical to provide both t

references: backwards compatibility

2006-10-16 Thread Steve Loughran
My test code broke this am, since the update. The cause? I was not explicitly depending on something that had needed run.classpath defined, but the automatic-reference definition stuff had been letting me get away with a (defective) build file. I did fix it, but wasted some time before decid