Great! Let me know if you find anything else.
Ken
scott hutinger wrote:
> 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