> I'd strongly prefer not to introduce any more developer dependencies than we
> already have without an extremely clear justification. At this point, the
> Java compilation is fairly straightforward, so I'm not seeing the benefit of
> using Ant here.
>
> So, what problem would JavaHL migrating to Ant solve? And, can 'make' be
> taught the right things instead? -- justin
Patrick has written a script (in Ant) to autogenerate the JNI headers
and (optionally) to compile the Java sources. So if we use Ant, we'll
solve two problems:
1. Currently, the Java dependencies aren't set up correctly (This is
easy to fix, but still requires some work)
2. We'll autogenerate the JNI headers, so they don't need to be
constantly updated in the subversion repository whenever there's an
API change. (This is a very hard task to accomplish using Make)
If we include the Ant JAR with Subversion, using Ant doesn't add a
dependency -- we're just calling our local version of Ant. It's not
unusual to bundle things with Subversion -- notice that we're already
bundling Neon and libtool.
Cheers,
David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Sep 3 15:40:21 2004