Quoting Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sorry for missing the point again ;-)
No problem. I appreciate that you took the time to answer :-)
>
> XML or .properties syntax for properties *is* irrelevant.
> But defining Ant paths in XML properties files is not.
Debateable
> This
> was a hack IMHO, and it may indeed by possible to fix it to
> behave just as if it was defined in the build file... Did you
> read that?
Yep, you passed the test of addressing my point. Yay!
> Just as in the build file! So just do it in an
> *actual* build that you import, instead of xmlproperty. You
> are thus guaranteed it will behave *as in* a build file ;-)
>
Yes, as you say, it might be considered a hack, but just like the
property-value-as-name "hack" for <macrodef>, this hack is useful. I just wish
it would work intuitively. If the feature is allowed, it ought to work
properly.
> Also, glad to hear import allows you do have a nice generic
> build file. But what prevents you for putting the Path info
> in the lightweight importing build file then? It's the project
> specific build file at this point, no?
>
Yes, but I'd rather not have any references to any of the specific dependencies
in the build file. The <path>'s have <pathelement> entries such as
<pathelement location="${log4j.jar}"/>. I don't want to reference ${log4j.jar}
or any other named dependency in my generic build file. That way, one can use
the build file in another project with no changes whatsoever and simply edit
the <xmlproperties> file as needed. It seems natural to me to expect to modify
a properties file more often than a build file.
> OK, OK, I won't barge in to your thread anymore. I personally
> avoid too many levels of indirection, but that's just me. --DD
>
I've always appreciated your advice, Dominique. Barge in whenever you feel
like! I always learn something. In this case, though, I've got something that
works pretty well for me and will probably continue to use it. I'm just hoping
some committer that understands the <xmlpropery> code in Ant can take up the
task of making <path>'s defined there equivalent to <path>'s defined elsewhere.
There are certainly ways to work around this, just like any other problem, but
one shouldn't even have to think about this. It should just work.
Jake
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
