Re: Trying to do things the "Ant way"

On 7/28/06, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "${stage.proj.wwwroot}" transfertype="${stage.transfertype}" /> The second deploy specifies basepath+proj.wwwroot+transfertype, when it should not be necessary, just like in the first deploy above. Oh, right. I saw that it

Re: Trying to do things the "Ant way"

The second deploy specifies basepath+proj.wwwroot+transfertype, when it should not be necessary, just like in the first deploy above. deploying all For the scalability issue, it's easy to have loop of the value of an environments var, which would contain a comma separated list

Re: Trying to do things the "Ant way"

onment, this may not work so well for you. But now that I have written this, it would be a shame not to share it anyway. -Rob Anderson > -Original Message- > From: Andrew Goktepe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 9:05 AM > To: Ant Users List > Subject:

Re: Trying to do things the "Ant way"

I'm trying these things out as you folks suggest them. Your latest suggestion meets my original requirements (fleshed out below... I'm open to further comments), but Andrew's point about scalability is well taken, so I'm going to make a decision based on a few factors. Thanks again Dominque and A

Re: Trying to do things the "Ant way"

I think you've misunderstood what I intended the "build-all" task to mean. I think you're right. I've misunderstood the problem. Now that I think I do, I probably would have gone with NFS... SSH wrapped in a . Something like: macro deploy attr server attr deploy-type defaults to [EMAIL

Re: Trying to do things the "Ant way"

I've translated your pseudo-code into Ant (see bottom), and I see that it does seem to remove the need for . However, unless *I* have misunderstood your reply, I think you've misunderstood what I intended the "build-all" task to mean. Each server in my case has one preferred transfer type; theref

RE: Trying to do things the "Ant way"

D] > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 9:05 AM > To: Ant Users List > Subject: Re: Trying to do things the "Ant way" > > There is a loss of performance when you use antcall in large, > complex builds. It also makes target dependencies less clear. > But it's the only wa

Re: Trying to do things the "Ant way"

BTW, in -deploy-all, I usually set these properties as To emphasis the fact that it's the properties existence that matters, not it's value (because that's what target's if/unless check). --DD On 7/28/06, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You can do something like: target deploy-

Re: Trying to do things the "Ant way"

You can do something like: target deploy-A if "deploy-type==A" target deploy-B if "deploy-type==B" target deploy depends -check-deploy, deploy-A, deploy-B, etc... target deploy-all depends -deploy-all, deploy target -check-deploy condition ${deploy-type} equals "A" set property "deploy-type==A

Re: Trying to do things the "Ant way"

Okay, thanks a lot. I'll give it a shot. :-D Thanks, Jamie On 7/28/06, Andrew Goktepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There is a loss of performance when you use antcall in large, complex builds. It also makes target dependencies less clear. But it's the only way I know of to call a specific target

Re: Trying to do things the "Ant way"

There is a loss of performance when you use antcall in large, complex builds. It also makes target dependencies less clear. But it's the only way I know of to call a specific target based on a value obtained at runtime. In most other cases, it's much better to use the 'depends' attribute of 'targe

Re: Trying to do things the "Ant way"

Thanks for the quick response. I have a couple of follow-ups. I've gotten the impression from reading other posts that is to be avoided, so I'm wondering about its use here. The other question I have is: How would I satisfy the deploy-all use case while reusing as much of the script as practica

Re: Trying to do things the "Ant way"

Oops. s/ wrote: We use a separate properties file for each environment, and have common property names. Instead of integ.transfertype, stage.transfertype, etc, I would just have 'transfertype' and it would have different values in the different files. Then the Ant script has targets based on th

Re: Trying to do things the "Ant way"

We use a separate properties file for each environment, and have common property names. Instead of integ.transfertype, stage.transfertype, etc, I would just have 'transfertype' and it would have different values in the different files. Then the Ant script has targets based on the possible values o

Trying to do things the "Ant way"

I'm having a problem trying to grok the "ant way" to do things (i.e., without conditionals). I just got started with Ant a couple days ago, so take that into consideration. I'm trying to produce a well-factored script to handle code deployment to remote servers. Tasks: * deploy-integ * deploy-