Steve Loughran schrieb am 18.06.2009 um 16:54:11 (+0100):
> Michael Ludwig wrote:
> >Ant, however, goes one step further: It will remove a write-protected
> >file, which will not work using Windows tools without force, and it
> >will even recursively remove a write-protected directory. That's not
Michael Ludwig wrote:
Steve Loughran schrieb am 16.06.2009 um 16:47:55 (+0100):
Michael Ludwig wrote:
Okay, so you were talking about Java limitations in general, not Java
limitations within the context of an Ant extension?
exactly.
Thanks for clarifying.
What you're saying about permiss
Steve Loughran schrieb am 16.06.2009 um 16:47:55 (+0100):
> Michael Ludwig wrote:
> >Okay, so you were talking about Java limitations in general, not Java
> >limitations within the context of an Ant extension?
>
> exactly.
Thanks for clarifying.
> >What you're saying about permissions reminds m
Michael Ludwig wrote:
Steve Loughran schrieb am 15.06.2009 um 12:40:59 (+0100):
Michael Ludwig wrote:
Steve Loughran schrieb am 12.06.2009 um 11:49:48 (+0100):
we do strive to be more declarative than fully procedural languages,
we don't have loops and so lack full turing-equivalence. There a
Steve Loughran schrieb am 15.06.2009 um 12:40:59 (+0100):
> Michael Ludwig wrote:
> >Steve Loughran schrieb am 12.06.2009 um 11:49:48 (+0100):
> >
> >>we do strive to be more declarative than fully procedural languages,
> >>we don't have loops and so lack full turing-equivalence. There are
> >>also
Michael Ludwig wrote:
Steve Loughran schrieb am 12.06.2009 um 11:49:48 (+0100):
we do strive to be more declarative than fully procedural languages,
we don't have loops and so lack full turing-equivalence. There are
also limits to what you can do in java
I think I can take this to mean "in An
, 12 Jun 2009 14:43:14 -0700
> From: elstonk...@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: Doing Ant builds
> To: user@ant.apache.org
>
> I wasn't dis'ing Ant. I was comparing Ant in the Java World or NAnt in the
> .NET world to Batch files.
>
>
>
>
> __
List
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 1:50:57 PM
Subject: Re: Doing Ant builds
Dominique Devienne schrieb am 12.06.2009 um 13:43:38 (-0500):
> There are many good alternatives to Ant out there, some better even
> most likely, but Ant has a community, tool / IDE support, and books to
> stil
I wasn't dis'ing Ant. I was comparing Ant in the Java World or NAnt in the
.NET world to Batch files.
From: Dominique Devienne
To: Ant Users List
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:43:38 PM
Subject: Re: Doing Ant builds
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:3
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Michael Ludwig wrote:
> Steve Loughran schrieb am 12.06.2009 um 11:49:48 (+0100):
>> we do strive to be more declarative than fully procedural languages,
>> we don't have loops and so lack full turing-equivalence. There are
>> also limits to what you can do in java
Steve Loughran schrieb am 12.06.2009 um 11:49:48 (+0100):
> we do strive to be more declarative than fully procedural languages,
> we don't have loops and so lack full turing-equivalence. There are
> also limits to what you can do in java
I think I can take this to mean "in Ant extensions (writte
Dominique Devienne schrieb am 12.06.2009 um 13:43:38 (-0500):
> There are many good alternatives to Ant out there, some better even
> most likely, but Ant has a community, tool / IDE support, and books to
> still make it relevant despite its many flaws. It's momentum has
> definitely slowed mind y
David Weintraub schrieb am 12.06.2009 um 12:22:52 (-0400):
> Ant and Make do two things that Batch scripts cannot do:
>
> 1). Dependency Matrix calculations
> 2). Build Avoidance
Good summary!
> Now to answer other questions: Why XML for Ant?
>
> XML is a very flexible tool since you can easil
Steve Loughran schrieb am 12.06.2009 um 11:49:48 (+0100):
> Ant is a language primarily for Java projects. Basing it on Java is
> not just an ideological purity game, but the only way to get at those
> internal bits of the JDK in the same process. all the original JDK
> library tasks: javac, javad
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Eric Fetzer wrote:
> "solution files" - if you're building .NET, go look at NAnt instead of Ant.
> The difference is similar to that of a Volkswagon Beetle vs. Rolls Royce...
Me think in the end more Beetles were sold, for far more total money,
than Rolls Royce's
"solution files" - if you're building .NET, go look at NAnt instead of Ant.
The difference is similar to that of a Volkswagon Beetle vs. Rolls Royce...
From: "Ina, Antoine"
To: Ant Users List
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:58:37
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Ina, Antoine wrote:
> I am posing a general question about Ant vs Make vs Batch:
> 1- What is advantage of Ant script over regular Batch script that calls up
> the solution files for all the projects in your system tree of projects(for
> Windows platform)
Ant an
Michael Ludwig wrote:
Ina, Antoine schrieb am 11.06.2009 um 19:58:37 (+0200):
I am posing a general question about Ant vs Make vs Batch:
1- What is advantage of Ant script over regular Batch script that
calls up the solution files for all the projects in your system tree
of projects(for Windows
Ina, Antoine schrieb am 11.06.2009 um 19:58:37 (+0200):
> I am posing a general question about Ant vs Make vs Batch:
> 1- What is advantage of Ant script over regular Batch script that
> calls up the solution files for all the projects in your system tree
> of projects(for Windows platform)
Now wh
I am posing a general question about Ant vs Make vs Batch:
1- What is advantage of Ant script over regular Batch script that calls up the
solution files for all the projects in
your system tree of projects(for Windows platform)
2- How does Ant handle up and down project dependencies
Regards,
A
20 matches
Mail list logo
