You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@ant.apache.org by Peter Vogel <pv...@arsin.com> on 2001/07/03 10:39:56 UTC
RE: for-each (another proposal)
Peter Donald writes:
> Other people are in favor of adding all sorts of
> logic/flow-control operators
> straight into core (or as tasks). This of course would mean
> ant is now
> expressible and extensible but not simple. Considering that a
> lot of build
> scenarios I setup are for less technically orientated people,
It's interesting that you say this. Because the same is true for
me, and has been for the 12 or so years I've been implementing
builds for one thing or another -- developers (whether C, C++,
Java or otherwise) generally consider build automation "beneath"
them (though they could not live without it) and so do not want to
be bothered with the intricacies of *any* build tool, whether it
be make, Ant, or (God forbid) shell scripts. Therefore, to me the
*key* requirement for a build tool is that it supports the construction
of an "infrastructure" which defines a project/company specific
environment of *conceptually simple* constructs that are reusable from
project to project within the company and where a project build file is
a "no brainer" for the developers -- the intelligence is embedded in the
infrastructure, where it can be explained to the small cadre of people who
care or have interest in such things, and where it can be appropriately
grown to meet the evolving needs of the company.
So, here's my problem with all your "template" concepts: they require that
I (and, more importantly, others who will inherit the infrastructure that
I construct, whether it be 6 weeks or 6 years from now) study and understand
yet another tool/language/etc. to do what can be done neatly and cleanly
within
the core of ant in a far simpler manner conceptually.
Let me know if you want examples of what I'm talking about (simple
per-project build files built on a powerful infrastructure) from both the
ant and make worlds.
-Peter
Re: Target 'build.xml' does not exist...
Posted by noname23 <no...@web.de>.
>What did I wrong?
[imo]
if you are using win98 there is an error in the ant.bat....
try to change
LOCALCLASSPATH=%CLASSPATH%
in
LOCALCLASSPATH="%CLASSPATH%"
(like it was said in de.comp.lang.java)
bye jens
Re: Target 'build.xml' does not exist...
Posted by Rakshit Daga <da...@me.umn.edu>.
I think you are facing the problem I did. The ant installation on your
environment seems to have been corrupted. Couldn't find a proper solution ,
but the problem goes if you create a new user (i.e if you are using nt or
win2k) and use ant through the new user's login.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bernd Gruendling" <be...@kontorist.de>
To: <an...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 4:33 AM
Subject: Target 'build.xml' does not exist...
Hi,
I'm trying to set up my first ANT project. I started with this
four-liner in a file called "simple.xml":
<project default="whatever">
<target name="whatever">
</target>
</project>
The currenct directory contained nothing but this. My first attempt was
[d:\temp\anttest]ant
Buildfile: build.xml does not exist!
Build failed.
Well. I understand that: build.xml is the default name for the build
file. Lets try
[d:\temp\anttest]ant -buildfile simple.xml
Buildfile: build.xml does not exist!
Build failed.
Why does it insist on build.xml?
Lets rename simple.xml to build.xml:
[d:\temp\anttest]ren simple.xml build.xml
[d:\temp\anttest]ant
Buildfile: build.xml
BUILD FAILED
Target 'build.xml' does not exist in this project.
Why does ANT confuse the build file and the target?
[d:\temp\anttest]ant -buildfile build.xml
Buildfile: build.xml
BUILD FAILED
Target 'build.xml' does not exist in this project.
Hm.
[d:\temp\anttest]ant -help
Buildfile: build.xml
BUILD FAILED
Target 'build.xml' does not exist in this project.
Time to go home.
What did I wrong?
Regards,
Bernd Gründling
_______________________________________________________________________
Bernd Gruendling Custom Software Development
Systemberatung Softwaredesign for Mac OS and Windows
Wendenstrasse 16 Phone: +49 5363 97676-0
38448 Wolfsburg, Germany Facsimile: +49 5363 97676-9
Target 'build.xml' does not exist...
Posted by Bernd Gruendling <be...@kontorist.de>.
Hi,
I'm trying to set up my first ANT project. I started with this
four-liner in a file called "simple.xml":
<project default="whatever">
<target name="whatever">
</target>
</project>
The currenct directory contained nothing but this. My first attempt was
[d:\temp\anttest]ant
Buildfile: build.xml does not exist!
Build failed.
Well. I understand that: build.xml is the default name for the build
file. Lets try
[d:\temp\anttest]ant -buildfile simple.xml
Buildfile: build.xml does not exist!
Build failed.
Why does it insist on build.xml?
Lets rename simple.xml to build.xml:
[d:\temp\anttest]ren simple.xml build.xml
[d:\temp\anttest]ant
Buildfile: build.xml
BUILD FAILED
Target 'build.xml' does not exist in this project.
Why does ANT confuse the build file and the target?
[d:\temp\anttest]ant -buildfile build.xml
Buildfile: build.xml
BUILD FAILED
Target 'build.xml' does not exist in this project.
Hm.
[d:\temp\anttest]ant -help
Buildfile: build.xml
BUILD FAILED
Target 'build.xml' does not exist in this project.
Time to go home.
What did I wrong?
Regards,
Bernd Gründling
_______________________________________________________________________
Bernd Gruendling Custom Software Development
Systemberatung Softwaredesign for Mac OS and Windows
Wendenstrasse 16 Phone: +49 5363 97676-0
38448 Wolfsburg, Germany Facsimile: +49 5363 97676-9
Re: for-each (another proposal)
Posted by "Larry V. Streepy, Jr." <st...@healthlanguage.com>.
Peter Donald wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2001 05:25, Larry V. Streepy, Jr. wrote:
> > I question, then, what is it that ant is supposed to do well?
>
> Go read first section of front page on ant site.
Okay, just did that, and it has this to say:
Ant is different. Instead of a model where it is extended with shell
based commands, it is extended using Java classes. Instead of
writing shell commands, the configuration files are XML based
calling out a target tree where various tasks get executed. Each
task is run by an object which implements a particular Task
interface.
Granted, this removes some of the expressive power that is inherent
by being able to construct a shell command such as `find . -name
foo -exec rm {}` but it gives you the ability to be cross platform.
To work anywhere and everywhere. And hey, if you really need to
execute a shell command, Ant has an exec rule that allows different
commands to be executed based on the OS that it is executing on.
Sounds like a build tool that is extended by writing java classes. I
don't see how flow control violates that goal.
> > I know that I'm repeating a previous
> > statement, but what good is a "pure" tool that doesn't address the needs
> > of the community it is supposed to serve?
>
> no good. But I will repeat the question in reverse. What good is a tool that
> can't be understood by it's users? I have offered a solution to your
> problems. You choose not to accept it.
This is where I get confused by your arguments. That question contains
the implicit assumption that flow control "can't be understood by [ants]
users". I think that is selling the ant user community way short.
I don't understand how a task like "sql" serves the core goal of ant,
but if/then/else does not.
--
Larry V. Streepy, Jr.
Chief Technical Officer and VP of Engineering
Health Language, Inc. -- "We speak the language of healthcare"
970/626-5028 (office) mailto:streepy@healthlanguage.com
970/626-4425 (fax) http://www.healthlanguage.com
Re: for-each (another proposal)
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 4 Jul 2001 05:25, Larry V. Streepy, Jr. wrote:
> Peter Donald wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Jul 2001 01:55, Larry V. Streepy, Jr. wrote:
> > > Pete, once again you've amazed me by dropping into sarcastic tones and
> > > some false sense of superiority when responding to a reasonable email.
> >
> > And I am constantly amazed by the people who gather to insult me after
> > it. It seems to give them some sort of satisfaction to chastize that
> > baffoon Pete.
>
> I only do it when your responses warrant it.
whats is comical is if I were to say that then you would insult me more. Joy.
> > > And I disagree that telling us to go learn another language/system is a
> > > reasonable solution to iteration. Basic iteration, which will probably
> > > cover 90% of the needs I've seen discussed on this list, is trivial to
> > > implement directly within ant.
> >
> > thats nice. So what about that 10% who aren't covered?
>
> In those cases, the right answer may be to roll your own task.
*sigh*
Isn't that exactly what we are trying to avoid? What ant-dev is constantly
critisized for?
> No
> solution will ever cover all cases. The goal should be to address the
> majority of the needs with a consistent framework.
right.
> The number of times that I've seen requests for it/then and looping in
> ant indicates that it is a basic need.
The number of times I have seen people ask for pointers in java indicates
that it is a basic need.
> I still can't understand how you can claim that if/them and looping are
> too complex and then turn around and suggest we use XSLT instead. How
> is that less complex?
It is not less complex - I have never claimed it was. What I do claim is that
the core of Ant will remain simple for the rest of us and the minority who
need the extra expressibility can pay for it.
> You claim that Peter Vogel is "just droning the same stuff". How many
> people need to drone the same request before ant-dev considers it a
> reasonable request?
We considered it a reasonable request the first time. I actually remember
considering much the same questions about a year ago (though I wasn't a
committer then). It was decided against. Repetition is unlikely to make
anyone change their mind. It has effectively made me ignore some people
because they are only wasting others time.
> You state: "I am a believer in doing one thing well. Currently ant does
> too many scripty things and encourages too many bad practices. These
> will hopefully be eliminated in ant2 but who can tell at this stage."
>
> I question, then, what is it that ant is supposed to do well?
Go read first section of front page on ant site.
> I know that I'm repeating a previous
> statement, but what good is a "pure" tool that doesn't address the needs
> of the community it is supposed to serve?
no good. But I will repeat the question in reverse. What good is a tool that
can't be understood by it's users? I have offered a solution to your
problems. You choose not to accept it.
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
Re: for-each (another proposal)
Posted by Diane Holt <ho...@yahoo.com>.
--- Jon Eaves <jo...@eaves.org> wrote:
> So, my advice is :
>
> a) show some patience on both sides
> b) let the ant-dev team take ant where _they_ want it to go and if you
> don't like the direction, choose another boat.
I couldn't agree more with "a", but that second part of "b" ("and if you
don't like...") sounds a bit dismissive to me and seems counter to the
advice given in "a". My recommendation for a "b" would be:
b) Experiment some with the proposals that are already coded up
and see if they'll do what you need to do, in a way that seems
acceptable to you; if they don't, offer your experiment as an
example of where/why/how it falls short and, if possible, offer
suggestions on how it could be changed to handle your case.
I'm hoping to get a chance to do some "b"ing myself, once I get a little
free time.
Diane
=====
(holtdl@yahoo.com)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: for-each (another proposal)
Posted by Jon Eaves <jo...@eaves.org>.
Hi all,
[ big snip of stuff ]
>
> No, just a significant amount of frustration.
>
> [I'm drawing text from another response of yours to this same thread]
>
> You claim that Peter Vogel is "just droning the same stuff". How many
> people need to drone the same request before ant-dev considers it a
> reasonable request? The diversions you provide into natural language
> theory are interesting, but don't have much relevance to the topic at
> hand.
I'm going to have to agree with Peter D here. One of the frustrations
that I have with Ant is that it's _not_ consistent. I would like it to
be just a transformation language, and not a scripting language, but it
has this weird mish-mash of declarative, conditional and flow. That
makes it super hard to learn.
>
> You state: "I am a believer in doing one thing well. Currently ant does
> too many scripty things and encourages too many bad practices. These
> will hopefully be eliminated in ant2 but who can tell at this stage."
>
> I question, then, what is it that ant is supposed to do well? I had
> thought is was a build management system. How does adding flow control
> (which a number of people have stated is needed for build management)
> somehow break the purity of ant. I know that I'm repeating a previous
> statement, but what good is a "pure" tool that doesn't address the needs
> of the community it is supposed to serve?
If you want a scripting tool, then I suggest that you try make, jmake or
another derivative, or heaven forbid, take the source-code of ant, and
create Scripty-Ant(tm) ;-).
I agree with you that the majority of the users wish to have flow control
via if/then/else and looping constructs. I agree with Peter D that they
probably don't know what they are asking for. If all you've got is a
hammer, then everything looks like a nail.
People need to understand that running a project like this is hard,
very hard, and takes up lots of time. As a maintainer and developer
of an open source effort, you get lots of "complaints" and very little
positive assistance or feedback. Occasionally, when you've heard the
same thing a few times, then you can get snippy, we are human after all.
So, my advice is :
a) show some patience on both sides
b) let the ant-dev team take ant where _they_ want it to go and if you
don't like the direction, choose another boat.
Cheers,
-- jon
--
Jon Eaves <jo...@eaves.org>
http://www.eaves.org/jon/
Re: for-each (another proposal)
Posted by "Larry V. Streepy, Jr." <st...@healthlanguage.com>.
Peter Donald wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2001 01:55, Larry V. Streepy, Jr. wrote:
> > Pete, once again you've amazed me by dropping into sarcastic tones and
> > some false sense of superiority when responding to a reasonable email.
>
> And I am constantly amazed by the people who gather to insult me after it. It
> seems to give them some sort of satisfaction to chastize that baffoon Pete.
I only do it when your responses warrant it.
> > IMO, anyone
> > that is responsible for setting up a build system HAS to understand some
> > level of programming and simple flow control is readily understandable.
>
> Well luckily I don't see that. Considering that most of the build files I
> have setup are for people who think Javascript+HTML is programming ...
Hmm, last time I checked javascript has flow control and looping.
> ...snip rant...
I didn't realize that arguments stating that flow control is not complex
and that some of the ant idioms are was a rant.
> > And I disagree that telling us to go learn another language/system is a
> > reasonable solution to iteration. Basic iteration, which will probably
> > cover 90% of the needs I've seen discussed on this list, is trivial to
> > implement directly within ant.
>
> thats nice. So what about that 10% who aren't covered?
In those cases, the right answer may be to roll your own task. No
solution will ever cover all cases. The goal should be to address the
majority of the needs with a consistent framework.
The number of times that I've seen requests for it/then and looping in
ant indicates that it is a basic need.
I still can't understand how you can claim that if/them and looping are
too complex and then turn around and suggest we use XSLT instead. How
is that less complex?
> > Now, hopefully, I'll get some other response than sarcasm or
> > condescension.
>
> nope. You haven't added anything new to conversation, nothing that wasn't
> already known and your comments are laced with the superiority complex that I
> seem to have.
No, just a significant amount of frustration.
[I'm drawing text from another response of yours to this same thread]
You claim that Peter Vogel is "just droning the same stuff". How many
people need to drone the same request before ant-dev considers it a
reasonable request? The diversions you provide into natural language
theory are interesting, but don't have much relevance to the topic at
hand.
You state: "I am a believer in doing one thing well. Currently ant does
too many scripty things and encourages too many bad practices. These
will hopefully be eliminated in ant2 but who can tell at this stage."
I question, then, what is it that ant is supposed to do well? I had
thought is was a build management system. How does adding flow control
(which a number of people have stated is needed for build management)
somehow break the purity of ant. I know that I'm repeating a previous
statement, but what good is a "pure" tool that doesn't address the needs
of the community it is supposed to serve?
> > In fact, I'd like to hear from the other commiters, or is Pete speaking
> > for the group on this issue?
>
> probably not but there only needs to be one -1 ;)
Which, IMO, is the real problem.
--
Larry V. Streepy, Jr.
Chief Technical Officer and VP of Engineering
Health Language, Inc. -- "We speak the language of healthcare"
970/626-5028 (office) mailto:streepy@healthlanguage.com
970/626-4425 (fax) http://www.healthlanguage.com
Re: for-each (another proposal)
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 4 Jul 2001 01:55, Larry V. Streepy, Jr. wrote:
> Pete, once again you've amazed me by dropping into sarcastic tones and
> some false sense of superiority when responding to a reasonable email.
And I am constantly amazed by the people who gather to insult me after it. It
seems to give them some sort of satisfaction to chastize that baffoon Pete.
> IMO, anyone
> that is responsible for setting up a build system HAS to understand some
> level of programming and simple flow control is readily understandable.
Well luckily I don't see that. Considering that most of the build files I
have setup are for people who think Javascript+HTML is programming ...
...snip rant...
> And I disagree that telling us to go learn another language/system is a
> reasonable solution to iteration. Basic iteration, which will probably
> cover 90% of the needs I've seen discussed on this list, is trivial to
> implement directly within ant.
thats nice. So what about that 10% who aren't covered?
> Now, hopefully, I'll get some other response than sarcasm or
> condescension.
nope. You haven't added anything new to conversation, nothing that wasn't
already known and your comments are laced with the superiority complex that I
seem to have.
> In fact, I'd like to hear from the other commiters, or is Pete speaking
> for the group on this issue?
probably not but there only needs to be one -1 ;)
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
Re: How to get current project in