ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Duncan Davidson" <dun...@x180.com>
Subject Re: Proposed Revolution: AntEater (a proposal for Ant Core 2.0)
Date Tue, 14 Nov 2000 01:53:18 GMT
On 11/13/00 5:31 PM, "Simeon Fitch" <metasim@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Maybe I'm reading your email wrong, but are you saying
> that the *current* Project, Target, and Task are DOM
> based? 

Nah -- I meant to say that the original Ant as donated used a straight DOM
tree from Crimson as it's data store. Actually, I think that they were
changed significantly after the initial contribution of the codebase. I
don't have a firm grasp on the current details -- just the opinion that it
needs to be changed.

> My argument is that if they *were*
> DOM based (insofar as my definition goes), it would be
> much easier for the GUI, as well as the ability to
> leverage all of the tools out there that already know
> how to speak to a true w3c DOM.

Right. I can see that -- but I'm not sure that I buy that DOM makes it
easier for the GUI -- I would think that a strongly typed tree would be
better. However, I'm not closed to the idea -- I just need to understand
your position better.

> And what do you mean by "native"?

A single data representation exported to all things that needs it (tasks,
scripts executed by tasks, guis, etc). Yes, at this point, I'd lean towards
a strongly typed tree -- but I am looking forward to hearing more about why
you think it should be DOM based.

-- 
James Duncan Davidson                                        duncan@x180.com
                                                                  !try; do()


Mime
View raw message