[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Javaweb-people] build tools
From: |
Nic Ferrier |
Subject: |
Re: [Javaweb-people] build tools |
Date: |
06 Feb 2002 23:07:31 +0000 |
Brian Jones <address@hidden> writes:
> I'm not in favor of Ant. It requires yet another build system.
It can be integrated fairly easily, but in general I agree with you.
> I like @filename syntax. It works. It's simple. If someone knows of
> a working dependency generator then that can be added (optionally
> even) but in the past I tried JavaDeps, jikes +M, MakeMaker, and
> others, and they all suck. Most things are not built with the idea of
> compiling the core class libraries. They sort of take those for
> granted.
I like @filename syntax as well.
My current makefile system generates an @ file by using implicit
rules. However, it's not exactly elegant.
It's not elegant for 2 reasons:
- the generation of the filelist breaks the source->object mapping
used by make
- pattern match rules work singularly.
If something could be done about the second option then make would
be a good solution for java because you could do this:
compile: $(CLASSLIST)
javac -d $(CLASSDEST) @at-filelist
$(CLASSDEST)/%.class: $(SOURCEDIR)/%.java
echo > at-filelist ;
$(foreach var,%@,echo $(var) > at-filelist)
I've been thinking whether there is a way to write a small java tool
to frig this... but I don't think so. The frustrating thing is that
make could do this quite efficiently if it wanted to.
> And the time I might spend recalculating dependencies is a
> waste because I can recompile the entire damn thing with jikes in far
> less time anyway, at least if it was written in Java.
Absolutely! But I have always been grateful for make's simple
checking of java source -> class file which can be achieved simply
enough. It's just this damn list/atom issue.
Nic