Missing feature?

[Frank Nestel <do...@bigfoot.com>]

Hi,

please reply directly since I'm not in this discussion list. I'm
allready
in to many lsits :-)

See the following scenario: I have two tasks A and B. Actually I like
them both separated, but actually task B also has to be executed after
finishing A. I.e. A is not dependand on B, but B is kind of cleanup
after
A. Is there a way to avoid a wrapper task A' which depends on A and
B, to avoid duplicating the rules of B in A? If not I'd like to suggest
a
task like
    <build target="s.th."/>
to allow convenient handling of this situations. I realize that ant does

s.th. fairly similar, but I'd like to avoid calling ant with the same
file
recursive. I also like to have most tasks in a build file to be meaning
ful for the user and not only s.th. to be wrapped...

Thank you,
Frank

Re: Missing feature?

[Roberto Lo Giacco <rl...@mail.com>]

> >>>>> "PD" == Peter Donald <do...@mad.scientist.com> writes:
>
>  PD> this is now done through the ant-call task that is unfortunately
>  PD> yet to be documented
>
> But does the same as <ant> called on the same file - at least at the
> moment.
>
> BTW It has been suggested to call the task calltarget instead of
> antcall, any objections?

Can I propose simply, silly and stupdly <call target="myTarget"/> or <goto
target="myTarget"/> ?

>
> Stefan

Re: Missing feature?

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@bost.de>]

>>>>> "PD" == Peter Donald <do...@mad.scientist.com> writes:

 PD> this is now done through the ant-call task that is unfortunately
 PD> yet to be documented

But does the same as <ant> called on the same file - at least at the
moment. 

BTW It has been suggested to call the task calltarget instead of
antcall, any objections?

Stefan

Re: Missing feature?

[Peter Donald <do...@mad.scientist.com>]

At 03:06  7/8/00 +0200, Frank Nestel wrote:
>See the following scenario: I have two tasks A and B. Actually I like
>them both separated, but actually task B also has to be executed after
>finishing A. I.e. A is not dependand on B, but B is kind of cleanup
>after
>A. Is there a way to avoid a wrapper task A' which depends on A and
>B, to avoid duplicating the rules of B in A? 

how about 

<target name="A" />
<target name="B" depends="A" />

???

>If not I'd like to suggest
>a
>task like
>    <build target="s.th."/>

this is now done through the ant-call task that is unfortunately yet to be
documented

    <target name="foo">
      <antcall target="bar">
        <param name="property1" value="aaaaa" />
        <param name="foo" value="baz" />
       </antcall>
    </target>

    <target name="bar" depends="init">
      <echo message="prop is ${property1} ${foo}" />
    </target>


Cheers,

Pete

*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power."          |
|       -Abraham Lincoln                               |
*------------------------------------------------------*