[Laszlo-dev] For Review: Summary: Making the LFC aware of whether it needs to be rebuilt.

[Benjamin Shine]

On Jun 11, 2006, at 7:53 AM, P T Withington wrote:

> There are no .lzx files in the LFC, but it would be good if the LFC  
> considered itself out of date if it is older than the compiler.

Okay, what files exactly should I check against? There's a bit of a  
sibling-invokes-sibling thing with building the server and the lfc;  
one builds the other, right? I'll need to be careful to avoid  
infinite loops.

>
> Not sure it is worth having separate up to date checks for the  
> flavors of LFC.  In the good old days of make, you could have had a  
> 'make depend' step that would enumerate the dependencies, but in  
> the modern, efficient, ant days, it just seems like asking for  
> trouble to create even more places that have to be kept in sync to  
> make the dependencies work.

Yeah -- I thought about how to best break this up, the right  
compromise between flexibility and PITA-ness. It's mostly scripted,  
so we can get as flexible as we want, here. How about we work with it  
as it is for now, and let problems declare themselves by making you  
crazy? And then, in turn, you bugging me to change it?

>
> On 2006-06-10, at 20:57 EDT, Benjamin Shine wrote:
>
>>
>> Summary: Making the LFC aware of whether it needs to be rebuilt.
>>
>> New Features: The lfc will not rebuild if the source hasn't changed.
>>
>> Bugs Fixed: LPP-2134, Make lfc build.xml aware of whether sources  
>> are up to date
>>
>> Technical Reviewer: ptw (pending)
>> QA Reviewer: frisco (pending)
>> Doc Reviewer: (pending)
>>
>> Documentation:
>>
>> Release Notes:
>>
>> Details:
>>
>> Tests:
>>
>> Files:
>>
>>
>> <WEB-INF-lps-lfc-build.xml.diff>
>>
>>
>> benjamin shine
>> software engineer
>> ben at laszlosystems.com
>>
>>
>>
>

benjamin shine
software engineer
ben at laszlosystems.com