| Ant & Makefile & managed builder [message #76649] |
Wed, 23 July 2003 18:36  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: alain.nowhere.ca
Bonjour,
Finally took a look at Ant. Not sure why all the fuss ;-). Yes Ant
is an interesting tool, no doubt, and of particular interest the glue
that exist between Ant and eclipse. I would encourage people
asking for Ant to look at platform-ant-home, to be exact the
org.eclipse.ant.* plugins ... some very nice stuff and to wet the appetite
Eclipse Ant for 3.0 battle plan.
It seems people coming from the Java side of things and screaming
for Ant do not realize, like Makefile, the Ant build.xml must be
manage somehow. It's maybe because they were introduce to Ant by some IDE
Eclipse/JDT, JBuilder etc..that took care of things.
Actually, they could be a simple way of integrating Ant to CDT, by using
the "managed builder". Currently, the managed builder will output
Makefile,
but I believe, Sean & Doug, in there proposal was talking to be able
to "plugin" any type of output, for example replacing the Makefile output
generation classes by an Ant output generation classes.
We will need the "managed build" to mature a little and once it get
more stable looking at ways to make this happen. Certainly willing to give
it a go. So this will make the managed build work with the Std Make builder
or the Ant builder(and must of the work is done in Eclipse-3.0 Ant
plugins).
Comments or other ways to integrate Ant ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ant & Makefile & managed builder [message #77457 is a reply to message #77253] |
Wed, 30 July 2003 09:16  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: alain.nowhere.ca
Sean Evoy wrote:
> Alain,
> I think you are right in your assessment that Ant build files are like make
> files from the perspective of the managed make builder; I can output build
> rules in any specification. What interests me the most is the specification
> of build tools that already exists as part of cpp-tasks. In any case, with
> the close integration of Ant with Eclipse, this might be something to
> seriously consider as we move beyond 1.2.
I think we are ... communicating 8)
Yes, that is exactly my feeling. Althought, I(we) will wait a little
the "managed build" is slowly coming mature. So beyond 1.2
is something we should put on the TODO.
I do not know how the "managed build" is tied with make.
But in theory ... 8-)
we could have different generators:
- Makefile
- build.xml
- scons
etc ... Assuming the "states" or rules build information is well
defined, this could let others contribute different generators.
This dicussion should probably be on the mailing list.
> "alain" <alain@nowhere.ca> wrote in message news:bfq1bc$cdb$1@eclipse.org...
> > John Camelon wrote:
> >
> > > "alain" <alain@nowhere.ca> wrote in message
> news:bfn2l3$ae5$1@eclipse.org...
> > > > Bonjour,
> > > > Finally took a look at Ant. Not sure why all the fuss ;-).
> >
> > > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > 8)
> > Are the number of "!" relevant ?
> >
> > We are talking in the C/C++ context right, so I'm ready to be
> > enlighted on how Ant will solve my build problem in my legacy
> > code instead of Makefile, and I will follow the light.
> >
> > But you chop the rest of the post, where I clearly see the advantage of
> > using it in Eclipse. I'm not interested in religious debate of
> > Ant vs Make but rather what's the best way to integrate, so the CDT
> > community can have another builder to enjoy.
> >
> > And reusing the work of the "managed build" and the current work
> > in "platform ant" seems like an feasible/interesting avenue.
> >
> >
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.25934 seconds
Home