I noticed a couple things going on with the build. (note: this is all
related to building javadoc)
First, one needs ant1.7 to start the build (which is fine), then the
build moves over to the lib/ant version which is:
Apache Ant version 1.7alpha compiled on July 12 2005
I have:
Apache Ant version 1.7.0 compiled on December 13 2006
I noticed that using Ant - December 13, 2006, and
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_07-b03)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.5.0_07-b03, mixed mode, sharing)
The build fails with an apt error. Using the 1.7alpha version of ant
was fine.
Moving to:
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_10-b03)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.5.0_10-b03, mixed mode, sharing)
Fixed the apt build problem using December 13, 2006 ant.
The whole point of this is related to doing a javadoc build 'ant
javadoc', which comes out-of-the-box with the following:
compile:
[echo] Looking for ant or ant.bat... found: ${execute.ant}
BUILD FAILED
/home/srh/src/jsftemp/jsftemplating/build.xml:81: Execute failed:
java.io.IOException: java.io.IOException: ${execute.ant}: not found
If one adds javadoc to the target 'all' :
diff -u -r1.16 build.xml
--- build.xml 22 Jan 2007 10:01:53 -0000 1.16
+++ build.xml 25 Jan 2007 16:23:31 -0000
@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@
<target name="build" depends="init, jar" />
- <target name="all" depends="build, build-samples" />
+ <target name="all" depends="build, build-samples, javadoc" />
javadoc builds.
I know it's a moot point, but does anyone have a good idea on which way
to get the target "javadoc" running? Or, should the target all have
javadoc? I thought possibly the beta build of ant was kept for a
purpose, if not then I'm not certain of much (although I'm not anyway).
Isn't apache ant apt a coretask that doesn't need
ant-apt.jar, as apt is in the release 1.7 version in ant.jar. I'm
certain the build exists the way it does for a reason.
ant-apt.jar MANIFEST:
Ant-Version: Apache Ant 1.6.5
Created-By: 1.5.0_04-b05 (Sun Microsystems Inc.)
Sorry for the confusion :-)
scott