[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: refactoring when using CVS

From: Kaz Kylheku
Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:25:15 GMT
User-agent: slrn/ (Linux)

In article <address@hidden>, Paul Sander wrote:
>>--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden
>>>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Sander <address@hidden> writes:
>>Paul> Unfortunately, if this is what your build procedure consists of, 
>>Don't be silly.  We have our own make tool (written in Java in fact) that
>>enforces various packaging layers during designer compilation and
>>Paul> then you lose traceability between your sources and shippables, and
>>Paul> you can't assess the impact of any change you make to your source
>>Paul> code.  That makes it really really hard to accomplish the common task
>>Paul> of shipping minimal patches when bugs are found in the product.
>>I believe that you would be insane to handle Java source in the fashion
>>described in my previous posting.  My point was, however, that the language
>>does not *force* you to keep the source in some sort of coherent order so
>>that it's incorrect for people (including me) to claim that it does.
>I'm glad that we're in agreement.  I do know some Java programmers who
>literally do use "javac `find . -name '*.java' -print`" as their build
>procedures, so I assume the worst when somebody mentions the practice.

That's terrible! What if the resulting command line violates the
systems's environment passing limit? Of course, you want:

        find . -name '*.java' -print | xargs javac

hopefully, none of the names contain spaces and newlines, but I wouldn't
put any such stupidity past Java programmers, so better use GNU tools:

        find . -name '*.java' -print0 | xargs -0 javac

Meta-CVS: version control with directory structure versioning over top of CVS.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]