You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ant.apache.org by bu...@apache.org on 2001/07/04 22:29:28 UTC
[Bug 1380] - I think that having conditional fails make more robust build files.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1380
*** shadow/1380 Thu Jun 21 07:25:54 2001
--- shadow/1380.tmp.24500 Wed Jul 4 13:29:28 2001
***************
*** 2,11 ****
| I think that having conditional fails make more robust build files. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bug #: 1380 Product: Ant |
! | Status: NEW Version: 1.3 |
! | Resolution: Platform: All |
| Severity: Enhancement OS/Version: All |
! | Priority: Component: Core tasks |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Assigned To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org |
| Reported By: gholam@xtra.co.nz |
--- 2,11 ----
| I think that having conditional fails make more robust build files. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bug #: 1380 Product: Ant |
! | Status: RESOLVED Version: 1.3 |
! | Resolution: REMIND Platform: All |
| Severity: Enhancement OS/Version: All |
! | Priority: High Component: Core tasks |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Assigned To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org |
| Reported By: gholam@xtra.co.nz |
***************
*** 36,39 ****
------- Additional Comments From bodewig@apache.org 2001-06-21 07:25 -------
! *** Bug 1997 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--- 36,51 ----
------- Additional Comments From bodewig@apache.org 2001-06-21 07:25 -------
! *** Bug 1997 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
!
! ------- Additional Comments From glennm@apache.org 2001-07-04 13:29 -------
! The problem I'm having with this issue is that we don't allow if/unless on any
! other tasks. Why should we make an exception for this one? I agree that for
! the particular use case it is a useful enhancement; I'm not a huge fan of having
! a million targets to inform a use of what error they have in a file. However,
! I'm not sure that this use case outweighs our desire to remain consistent in our
! use of if/unless (Please don't laugh... :-).
!
! I think this one might have to wait to be reevaluated for Ant2.
!
! Comments?
Re: [Bug 1380] - I think that having conditional fails make more
robust build files.
Posted by "Larry V. Streepy, Jr." <st...@healthlanguage.com>.
It may be too late to lobby for this change (i tried once already :-).
When I first learned ant, it took me a while to figure out how to ensure
that certain properties where set at entry to the build. In order to do
this I had to use an idiom that required writing a target for every
property I wanted to test. As the number of properties grew, I found
that the build file became bloated with loads of "extra" targets.
Also, the cases where I wanted to fail the build, unconditionally, was
very tiny, like zero. :-)
IMO, it is dramatically simpler to allow the fail task to have an
if/unless (as do patternsets) since it allows me to place all my
property checking into a single target. It makes the build file more
understandable, thus more maintainable by the unfortunate person that
will inherit the build after I'm through with it.
Ok, I'm done lobbying. Thanks for listening.
Glenn McAllister wrote:
>
> "Larry V. Streepy, Jr." wrote:
>
> > Ok, I must have taken stupid pills this morning because I can't figure
> > out what just happened with this bug.
> >
> > I see that the status changed to RESOLVED, but the comments don't
> > indicate what happened.
>
> But the bug report does. The Resolution has been changed to REMIND. I agreed that
> there was a pretty good use case, but that I didn't want to start introducing if/unless
> at the task level for Ant1. Thus, I set the resolution to REMIND so we can revisit
> this issue for Ant 2 but get it off the books for Ant 1 so we can drive towards a 1.4
> release.
>
> > >
> > > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1380
> > >
> > > *** shadow/1380 Thu Jun 21 07:25:54 2001
> > > --- shadow/1380.tmp.24500 Wed Jul 4 13:29:28 2001
> > > ***************
> > > *** 2,11 ****
> > > | I think that having conditional fails make more robust build files. |
> > > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> > > | Bug #: 1380 Product: Ant |
> > > ! | Status: NEW Version: 1.3 |
> > > ! | Resolution: Platform: All |
> > > | Severity: Enhancement OS/Version: All |
> > > ! | Priority: Component: Core tasks |
> > > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> > > | Assigned To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org |
> > > | Reported By: gholam@xtra.co.nz |
> > > --- 2,11 ----
> > > | I think that having conditional fails make more robust build files. |
> > > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> > > | Bug #: 1380 Product: Ant |
> > > ! | Status: RESOLVED Version: 1.3 |
> > > ! | Resolution: REMIND Platform: All |
> > > | Severity: Enhancement OS/Version: All |
> > > ! | Priority: High Component: Core tasks |
> > > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> Glenn McAllister
> SOMA Networks, Inc.
--
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: [Bug 1380] - I think that having conditional fails make more robust build files.
Posted by Michael McCallum <mi...@spinsoftware.com>.
Are Target level conditionals being removed in Ant2?
I think Task level conditionals make much more sense on a case by case basis than Target
level conditionals ever can.
With the conditional on fail tasks it is actually possible to write a readable build file that checks
to make sure you have a functioning build environment.
Michael
On 5 Jul 2001, at 19:13, Glenn McAllister wrote:
> "Larry V. Streepy, Jr." wrote:
>
> > Ok, I must have taken stupid pills this morning because I can't figure
> > out what just happened with this bug.
> >
> > I see that the status changed to RESOLVED, but the comments don't
> > indicate what happened.
>
> But the bug report does. The Resolution has been changed to REMIND. I agreed that
> there was a pretty good use case, but that I didn't want to start introducing if/unless
> at the task level for Ant1. Thus, I set the resolution to REMIND so we can revisit
> this issue for Ant 2 but get it off the books for Ant 1 so we can drive towards a 1.4
> release.
>
> > >
> > > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1380
> > >
> > > *** shadow/1380 Thu Jun 21 07:25:54 2001
> > > --- shadow/1380.tmp.24500 Wed Jul 4 13:29:28 2001
> > > ***************
> > > *** 2,11 ****
> > > | I think that having conditional fails make more robust build files. |
> > > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> > > | Bug #: 1380 Product: Ant |
> > > ! | Status: NEW Version: 1.3 |
> > > ! | Resolution: Platform: All |
> > > | Severity: Enhancement OS/Version: All |
> > > ! | Priority: Component: Core tasks |
> > > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> > > | Assigned To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org |
> > > | Reported By: gholam@xtra.co.nz |
> > > --- 2,11 ----
> > > | I think that having conditional fails make more robust build files. |
> > > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> > > | Bug #: 1380 Product: Ant |
> > > ! | Status: RESOLVED Version: 1.3 |
> > > ! | Resolution: REMIND Platform: All |
> > > | Severity: Enhancement OS/Version: All |
> > > ! | Priority: High Component: Core tasks |
> > > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> Glenn McAllister
> SOMA Networks, Inc.
>
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't
-- David Zindell
Re: [Bug 1380] - I think that having conditional fails make more
robust build files.
Posted by Glenn McAllister <gl...@somanetworks.com>.
"Larry V. Streepy, Jr." wrote:
> Ok, I must have taken stupid pills this morning because I can't figure
> out what just happened with this bug.
>
> I see that the status changed to RESOLVED, but the comments don't
> indicate what happened.
But the bug report does. The Resolution has been changed to REMIND. I agreed that
there was a pretty good use case, but that I didn't want to start introducing if/unless
at the task level for Ant1. Thus, I set the resolution to REMIND so we can revisit
this issue for Ant 2 but get it off the books for Ant 1 so we can drive towards a 1.4
release.
> >
> > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1380
> >
> > *** shadow/1380 Thu Jun 21 07:25:54 2001
> > --- shadow/1380.tmp.24500 Wed Jul 4 13:29:28 2001
> > ***************
> > *** 2,11 ****
> > | I think that having conditional fails make more robust build files. |
> > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> > | Bug #: 1380 Product: Ant |
> > ! | Status: NEW Version: 1.3 |
> > ! | Resolution: Platform: All |
> > | Severity: Enhancement OS/Version: All |
> > ! | Priority: Component: Core tasks |
> > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> > | Assigned To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org |
> > | Reported By: gholam@xtra.co.nz |
> > --- 2,11 ----
> > | I think that having conditional fails make more robust build files. |
> > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> > | Bug #: 1380 Product: Ant |
> > ! | Status: RESOLVED Version: 1.3 |
> > ! | Resolution: REMIND Platform: All |
> > | Severity: Enhancement OS/Version: All |
> > ! | Priority: High Component: Core tasks |
> > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Glenn McAllister
SOMA Networks, Inc.
Re: [Bug 1380] - I think that having conditional fails make more
robust build files.
Posted by "Larry V. Streepy, Jr." <st...@healthlanguage.com>.
Ok, I must have taken stupid pills this morning because I can't figure
out what just happened with this bug.
I see that the status changed to RESOLVED, but the comments don't
indicate what happened.
Please respond to me directly (or in addition) since I don't currently
monitor ant-dev.
Thanks.
bugzilla@apache.org wrote:
>
> http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1380
>
> *** shadow/1380 Thu Jun 21 07:25:54 2001
> --- shadow/1380.tmp.24500 Wed Jul 4 13:29:28 2001
> ***************
> *** 2,11 ****
> | I think that having conditional fails make more robust build files. |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Bug #: 1380 Product: Ant |
> ! | Status: NEW Version: 1.3 |
> ! | Resolution: Platform: All |
> | Severity: Enhancement OS/Version: All |
> ! | Priority: Component: Core tasks |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Assigned To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org |
> | Reported By: gholam@xtra.co.nz |
> --- 2,11 ----
> | I think that having conditional fails make more robust build files. |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Bug #: 1380 Product: Ant |
> ! | Status: RESOLVED Version: 1.3 |
> ! | Resolution: REMIND Platform: All |
> | Severity: Enhancement OS/Version: All |
> ! | Priority: High Component: Core tasks |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Assigned To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org |
> | Reported By: gholam@xtra.co.nz |
> ***************
> *** 36,39 ****
>
>
> ------- Additional Comments From bodewig@apache.org 2001-06-21 07:25 -------
> ! *** Bug 1997 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
> --- 36,51 ----
>
>
> ------- Additional Comments From bodewig@apache.org 2001-06-21 07:25 -------
> ! *** Bug 1997 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
> !
> ! ------- Additional Comments From glennm@apache.org 2001-07-04 13:29 -------
> ! The problem I'm having with this issue is that we don't allow if/unless on any
> ! other tasks. Why should we make an exception for this one? I agree that for
> ! the particular use case it is a useful enhancement; I'm not a huge fan of having
> ! a million targets to inform a use of what error they have in a file. However,
> ! I'm not sure that this use case outweighs our desire to remain consistent in our
> ! use of if/unless (Please don't laugh... :-).
> !
> ! I think this one might have to wait to be reevaluated for Ant2.
> !
> ! Comments?
--
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