beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kenneth Tam <kentamina...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: changing the system controls from .jcs to .java
Date Thu, 06 Oct 2005 21:10:46 GMT
On 10/5/05, Kyle Marvin <kylemarvin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/4/05, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com> wrote:
> > All--
> >
> >  I'm going to rename the system controls from being *.jcs files to
> > being *.java files so that they're easier to work with in the IDE.
> > Shouldn't be any other changes as a result except for a bit of code
> > reformatting.
> >
> >  Dissenters, weigh in.  :)
>
> I think this is fine.  Ironically, the reason why custom filename
> extensions exist at all was to make things easier for an IDE (so it
> could present different file types w/out having to open/scan the file
> for annotations).
>
> But the actual handling of .jcs and .java is identical from a
> bulid/runtime perspective, so there shouldn't be any problems.
>
> -- Kyle
>

I haven't checked on this recently, but there may actually be an issue
wrt build-time with eliminating .jcs.

In order to ensure proper compile time dependency resolution for
controls when using the JDK apt tool, at some point it was important
to explicitly ensure that certain kinds of artifacts were compiled
before others.  This led to the "compileByExtension" attribute in
AptTask, which allowed you to specify that certain extensions would be
processed first.  This is currently used in the "build-controls" and
"build-webservices" targets in trunk/ant/beehive-tools.xml.  Based on
this, I would be a little surprised if we could rename all .jcs files
in the tree to .java and have it "just work".   While it may work in
some specific cases, (say, the system controls) since they may not
have dependency relationships that trigger problems, we should be
clear on the "right answer" for the issue of .jcs in general.

Mime
View raw message