Re: Incremental builder and natures

From: Anders Peterson (anders_peterso..ptimatika.se)
Date: Fri Mar 07 2003 - 06:50:08 EST

  • Next message: Ulrich Köster: "Re: CVS and *.eomodeld~ files"

    On fredag, mar 7, 2003, at 12:06 Europe/Stockholm, Harald Niesche wrote:

    > "Anders Peterson" <peterso..ptimatika.se> wrote:
    >> They still don't work...
    >
    > I'll take a look at the wizards later.

    Ulrich told me I had to delete the 'output' folder as well (not just
    the 'dist' folder). Now I can't build at all. I'll just let it rest for
    a while...

    >>>> I filed a bug report [ 698610 ] Incremental builder builds
    >>>> frameworks
    >>>> named *.woa
    >>> ... I'll fix this in CVS.
    >> It's fixed.
    >
    > Great, is there a process for this, i.e., do you set the bug to
    > "Verifed"?

    I don't know. There is no "Verified" Status (or Resolution). What if I
    set it to "Deleted" - will it disappear?

    >>> started in the debugger. It is not supposed to create deployment
    >>> builds.
    >>
    >> ... and use WOProject/Ant to deploy/install (only).
    >
    > Exactly, that's the plan.

    I like the plan.

    >> Either only a dedicated folder (you would have to accept all files) or
    >> how about both in combination. You specify.
    >> 1) Where to look for resources
    >> 2) Which file types to include
    >
    > The only part I'm not clear on is whether this is "and" or "or" -- do I
    > include everything from the specified folders plus everything that
    > matches
    > the wildcards? Or just stuff from the dedicated folders that also
    > matches
    > the wildcards?

    It's "and".

    > I'd like to keep the editor simple for now. How about wildcards that
    > can
    > contain folder names?
    >
    > e.g. "Resources/*;*.xml;*.eomodeld/*;*.wo/*"

    For now, anything is ok (as long as it works).

    >> The Ant script and the incremental builder will use the same
    >> configuration - right?
    >
    > That depends -- we could put the configuration into build.properties,
    > but
    > then the expressions would have to be Ant compatible -- probably not a
    > bad
    > thing anyway. (Note to self: Think *before* you write!)

    I really think having one set of configurations is a good idea. Being
    Ant compatible can't be that must of a restriction.

    In the future: There will be no need to choose Ant or Incremental and
    no need to turn either of them On/Off. The incremental builder is
    always on (why not) and the Ant script is invoked as needed (an Install
    Now button).

    >> Do you have to generate a new build.xml file? Couldn't a standard
    >> build.xml file just read all configurable setting from a separate
    >> file,
    >> and the incremental builder use the same settings/file?
    >
    > Well, that's a thought (see above). I'd like WOLips to generate the
    > build.xml if it doesn't exist, though (think about converting plain
    > Java
    > projects by checking "Is a WebObjects project").

    As long as I don't have to modify the build.xml file (as I do now).

    /Anders



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 06:53:20 EST