Re: extension: does this make sense?

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, stephan beal <st...@wanderinghorse.net> wrote:

> That looks like a pretty safe way to check for platform-specific
> commands

But costly at the same time, and you have to make sure that you don't
create any side effects in the execution.  I'd be very careful here.

> (or maybe <available> could be extended to look for a system
> command).

I think it can already do so, at least to a certain extent.

Stefan

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: extension: does this make sense?

[stephan beal <st...@wanderinghorse.net>]

On Tuesday 02 April 2002 15:02 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, stephan beal <st...@wanderinghorse.net> wrote:
> > That looks like a pretty safe way to check for platform-specific
> > commands
>
> But costly at the same time, and you have to make sure that you don't
> create any side effects in the execution.  I'd be very careful here.

What types of side-effects (not arguing, just asking)? i can't currently 
imagine any side-effects which can't also be caused by mis-typing a property 
name or other such mistake. Of course, if you go deleting trees and 
such in your execs, it's you're own fault if something fails later because a 
tree isn't there. That's just part of buildfile debuggering.

> But costly...

With all the build time ant has saved me, i almost feel the need to take up a 
few extra minutes with extraneous <exec> calls ;). (build time > 60 minutes 
with make, <4 with ant.)

----- stephan
Generic Unix Computer Guy
stephan@einsurance.de - http://www.einsurance.de
Office: +49 (89)  552 92 862 Handy:  +49 (179) 211 97 67
"...control is a degree of inhibition, and a system which is perfectly
inhibited is completely frozen." -- Alan W. Watts

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>