Re: Adding resources

From: logan.allre..onvergys.com
Date: Fri Dec 09 2005 - 11:22:51 EST

  • Next message: JR Ruggentaler: "Current recommended version of Eclipse + WOLips"

    Mike Schrag <mschra..dimension.com> wrote on 12/08/2005 10:42:31 AM:

    > I think it should maybe be (this is just a proposal):
    >
    > 1) **/*.gif should flatten
    > 2) **/Folder/**/*.gif should flatten starting at a particular folder
    > 3) **/Folder should include "Folder" and all of its contents
    > 4) **/Folder/* should include all the contents of Folder but not
    > Folder itself
    >
    > So "**" should always interpret as flattening anything that matches
    > the **. I have no idea if this jives with the way ant does things,
    > though, so this may not be possible without a bunch of work. It may
    > be that we have to extend the wsresources/resources/etc include/
    > exclude patterns to support specifying flattening behavior explicitly?
    >
    > ms

    As one regularly bit by this bug (we have some developers on our team
    using ant builder and some using incremental builder), it's most important
    to us that the 2 build types be in synch. Plus we'll be starting automated
    remote builds using just ant/WOProject pretty soon, and we don't want to
    have to manually tweak those to get them to work.

    I don't have a preference on the flattening style, though I've never found
    the flattening to be useful. We generally organize our images/resources in
    folders for a reason and reference those paths accordingly.

    The above rules should work fine as long as ant can respect them, and as
    long as they're appropriately documented, and when debugging an ant build
    the output makes note of is as well to remind people why images with the
    same name from different folders will clobber each other.

    IIRC, the flattening was implemented in the first place to match what the
    old ProjectBuilder did. If that's so, that needs to be considered as well
    (except probably for Xcode). It doesn't necessarily have to be done that
    way, but it at least needs to be considered and documented.

    If it's decided to do explicit flattening behavior in the patterns, my
    vote is to default to no flattening, FWIW.

    thanks,
    Logan



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Dec 09 2005 - 12:32:45 EST