You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ant.apache.org by jon seymour <jo...@zeta.org.au> on 2000/02/10 13:22:03 UTC
make-like use of timestamps to avoid unnecessary rework
Hi. I like the ideas behind ant - great work!
A feature of make that I would really miss, though, is the ability to
avoid performing work that hasn't been invalidated since last time it
was done [ my build processes are long running enough as they are! ]
Are there any plans to incorporate some kind of timestamp checking
mechanism to avoid building targets that have already been built and are
still valid?
Regards,
jon.
Re: make-like use of timestamps to avoid unnecessary rework
Posted by Fergus Gallagher <Fe...@OrbisUK.com>.
I was dead wrong - the Javac task does
if (srcFile.lastModified() > classFile.lastModified()) {
compileList.addElement(srcFile.getAbsolutePath());
}
My problem was that the clocks on my machine isn't properly synched with
the (samba) filesystem.
Fergus
Fergus Gallagher wrote:
>
> Yes, I assumed you were having problems getting ant to STOP recompiling
> your sources. That works. But if you make a change to a source, ant
> (javac) will not recompile it as it only look for a corresponding .class
> without comparing timestamps or file sizes. I find I use fine grained
> <deltree> targets if I'm working on a sub-project for any length of
> time.
>
> Fergus
>
> jon seymour wrote:
> >
> > I am may be wrong, but isn't it conditional recompile function you are
> > exploiting a function of javac, not ant?
> >
> > As far as I can tell ant target names are completely unrelated to filesystem
> > objects and a cursory examination of the code
> > didn't reveal any use of timestamps to suppress unnecessary work.
> >
> > jon.
> >
> > Fergus Gallagher wrote:
> >
> > > Ant does this but strangely I had a similar problem this morning. It
> > > appears that ant needs to have the java sources in the same directory
> > > structure as the package name. If you do this, then ant won't recompile
> > > things unnecessarily.
> > >
> > > Fergus
> > >
> > > jon seymour wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi. I like the ideas behind ant - great work!
> > > >
> > > > A feature of make that I would really miss, though, is the ability to
> > > > avoid performing work that hasn't been invalidated since last time it
> > > > was done [ my build processes are long running enough as they are! ]
> > > >
> > > > Are there any plans to incorporate some kind of timestamp checking
> > > > mechanism to avoid building targets that have already been built and are
> > > > still valid?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > jon.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Fergus Gallagher Tel: +44 (20) 89 87 07 17
> > > Orbis Fax: +44 (20) 87 42 26 49
> > > The Swan Centre email: Fergus.Gallagher@orbisuk.com
> > > Fishers Lane Web: http://www.orbisuk.com
> > > London W4 1RX / UK
>
> --
> Fergus Gallagher Tel: +44 (20) 89 87 07 17
> Orbis Fax: +44 (20) 87 42 26 49
> The Swan Centre email: Fergus.Gallagher@orbisuk.com
> Fishers Lane Web: http://www.orbisuk.com
> London W4 1RX / UK
--
Fergus Gallagher Tel: +44 (20) 89 87 07 17
Orbis Fax: +44 (20) 87 42 26 49
The Swan Centre email: Fergus.Gallagher@orbisuk.com
Fishers Lane Web: http://www.orbisuk.com
London W4 1RX / UK
Re: make-like use of timestamps to avoid unnecessary rework
Posted by Fergus Gallagher <Fe...@OrbisUK.com>.
Yes, I assumed you were having problems getting ant to STOP recompiling
your sources. That works. But if you make a change to a source, ant
(javac) will not recompile it as it only look for a corresponding .class
without comparing timestamps or file sizes. I find I use fine grained
<deltree> targets if I'm working on a sub-project for any length of
time.
Fergus
jon seymour wrote:
>
> I am may be wrong, but isn't it conditional recompile function you are
> exploiting a function of javac, not ant?
>
> As far as I can tell ant target names are completely unrelated to filesystem
> objects and a cursory examination of the code
> didn't reveal any use of timestamps to suppress unnecessary work.
>
> jon.
>
> Fergus Gallagher wrote:
>
> > Ant does this but strangely I had a similar problem this morning. It
> > appears that ant needs to have the java sources in the same directory
> > structure as the package name. If you do this, then ant won't recompile
> > things unnecessarily.
> >
> > Fergus
> >
> > jon seymour wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi. I like the ideas behind ant - great work!
> > >
> > > A feature of make that I would really miss, though, is the ability to
> > > avoid performing work that hasn't been invalidated since last time it
> > > was done [ my build processes are long running enough as they are! ]
> > >
> > > Are there any plans to incorporate some kind of timestamp checking
> > > mechanism to avoid building targets that have already been built and are
> > > still valid?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > jon.
> >
> > --
> > Fergus Gallagher Tel: +44 (20) 89 87 07 17
> > Orbis Fax: +44 (20) 87 42 26 49
> > The Swan Centre email: Fergus.Gallagher@orbisuk.com
> > Fishers Lane Web: http://www.orbisuk.com
> > London W4 1RX / UK
--
Fergus Gallagher Tel: +44 (20) 89 87 07 17
Orbis Fax: +44 (20) 87 42 26 49
The Swan Centre email: Fergus.Gallagher@orbisuk.com
Fishers Lane Web: http://www.orbisuk.com
London W4 1RX / UK
Re: make-like use of timestamps to avoid unnecessary rework
Posted by jon seymour <jo...@zeta.org.au>.
I am may be wrong, but isn't it conditional recompile function you are
exploiting a function of javac, not ant?
As far as I can tell ant target names are completely unrelated to filesystem
objects and a cursory examination of the code
didn't reveal any use of timestamps to suppress unnecessary work.
jon.
Fergus Gallagher wrote:
> Ant does this but strangely I had a similar problem this morning. It
> appears that ant needs to have the java sources in the same directory
> structure as the package name. If you do this, then ant won't recompile
> things unnecessarily.
>
> Fergus
>
> jon seymour wrote:
> >
> > Hi. I like the ideas behind ant - great work!
> >
> > A feature of make that I would really miss, though, is the ability to
> > avoid performing work that hasn't been invalidated since last time it
> > was done [ my build processes are long running enough as they are! ]
> >
> > Are there any plans to incorporate some kind of timestamp checking
> > mechanism to avoid building targets that have already been built and are
> > still valid?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > jon.
>
> --
> Fergus Gallagher Tel: +44 (20) 89 87 07 17
> Orbis Fax: +44 (20) 87 42 26 49
> The Swan Centre email: Fergus.Gallagher@orbisuk.com
> Fishers Lane Web: http://www.orbisuk.com
> London W4 1RX / UK
Re: make-like use of timestamps to avoid unnecessary rework
Posted by Fergus Gallagher <Fe...@OrbisUK.com>.
Ant does this but strangely I had a similar problem this morning. It
appears that ant needs to have the java sources in the same directory
structure as the package name. If you do this, then ant won't recompile
things unnecessarily.
Fergus
jon seymour wrote:
>
> Hi. I like the ideas behind ant - great work!
>
> A feature of make that I would really miss, though, is the ability to
> avoid performing work that hasn't been invalidated since last time it
> was done [ my build processes are long running enough as they are! ]
>
> Are there any plans to incorporate some kind of timestamp checking
> mechanism to avoid building targets that have already been built and are
> still valid?
>
> Regards,
>
> jon.
--
Fergus Gallagher Tel: +44 (20) 89 87 07 17
Orbis Fax: +44 (20) 87 42 26 49
The Swan Centre email: Fergus.Gallagher@orbisuk.com
Fishers Lane Web: http://www.orbisuk.com
London W4 1RX / UK