Re: [Javaweb-people] build tools

[Nic Ferrier]

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