You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ant.apache.org by Peter Donald <do...@apache.org> on 2000/11/10 15:25:42 UTC
Multiple Patterns No more ?
Hi,
I just noticed that multiple patterns in include/exclude do not work
anymore. I also notice that there seeems to be broken behaviour in some
include/exclude operations.
I missed the reason why multiple patterns were removed - can someone
enlighten me ? ;) I use to use them all the time for constructs like
"com/biz/*/**". Now I tried to get around this by using an include of
"com/biz/**" and an exclude of "com/biz/*" but that doesn't seem to work
either. This is a bug right from what I understand ?
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
Re: Multiple Patterns No more ?
Posted by Ken Wood <kw...@i2.com>.
I'm not sure about this case.
I do things that are a bit more specific, like
include name="a/b/**/*.java
exclude name="a/b/**/test/*
And it works fine.
Peter Donald wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just noticed that multiple patterns in include/exclude do not work
> anymore. I also notice that there seeems to be broken behaviour in some
> include/exclude operations.
>
> I missed the reason why multiple patterns were removed - can someone
> enlighten me ? ;) I use to use them all the time for constructs like
> "com/biz/*/**". Now I tried to get around this by using an include of
> "com/biz/**" and an exclude of "com/biz/*" but that doesn't seem to work
> either. This is a bug right from what I understand ?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>
> *------------------------------------------------------*
> | "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
> | to test a man's character, give him power." |
> | -Abraham Lincoln |
> *------------------------------------------------------*
Re: Multiple Patterns No more ?
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>.
At 04:04 10/11/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Peter Donald <do...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I missed the reason why multiple patterns were removed - can someone
>> enlighten me ? ;)
>
>I can't remeber the had been removed. Could be side effect of the
>changes I have made to DirectoryScanner to speed it up (by not
>scanning excluded directories). If so, it is an accident.
Okay - I will have a look ;)
>> I use to use them all the time for constructs like
>> "com/biz/*/**". Now I tried to get around this by using an include
>> of "com/biz/**" and an exclude of "com/biz/*" but that doesn't seem
>> to work either.
>
>The later one should work and I don't see any reason why your old
>construct wouldn't work either (you know that "doesn't work" is not
>the most specific form of a bug report ;-)
well by doesn't work I meant produced no results or matched nothing :0
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
Re: Multiple Patterns No more ?
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@bost.de>.
Peter Donald <do...@apache.org> wrote:
> I missed the reason why multiple patterns were removed - can someone
> enlighten me ? ;)
I can't remeber the had been removed. Could be side effect of the
changes I have made to DirectoryScanner to speed it up (by not
scanning excluded directories). If so, it is an accident.
> I use to use them all the time for constructs like
> "com/biz/*/**". Now I tried to get around this by using an include
> of "com/biz/**" and an exclude of "com/biz/*" but that doesn't seem
> to work either.
The later one should work and I don't see any reason why your old
construct wouldn't work either (you know that "doesn't work" is not
the most specific form of a bug report ;-)
Cheers
Stefan