Thanks Ken,
Everything works fine now, including JVM 1.5.0_07-b03 and the release
ant during the apt build. And yes, ant javadoc works :-)
thanks much,
scott
Ken Paulsen wrote:
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
>
> I wasn't aware of the of the apt error w/ JVM 1.5.0_07-b03 & the newer
> ant. I will document it.
>
> I fixed the "javadoc" problem. So "ant javadoc" should now work.
>
> I also changed how it finds "ant". Instead of using the bundled ant
> (which I want to remove altogether), it uses the ant in your path.
> I've been testing this change for a few days and haven't seen a
> problem... however, if you notice any problems related to my latest
> checkin, please let me know.
>
> Please let me know if you find any other issues or if you can't find
> the documentation you need. I think "documentation" is this projects
> biggest weakness -- I'll do what I can to make up for that by
> answering questions and growing the documentation where it's needed most.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ken
>
> scott hutinger wrote:
>> 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