ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Duncan Davidson" <>
Subject Re: Proposed Revolution: AntEater (a proposal for Ant Core 2.0)
Date Tue, 14 Nov 2000 20:20:59 GMT
On 11/14/00 1:17 AM, "Stefan Bodewig" <> wrote:

> Well, basically we all seem to agree on the big picture of Ant 2.0 -
> we also seem to agree that Ant2 might need to break with backwards
> compatibility but provide a solid and stable basis for the future. I
> understand that you want to go coding on your own and not let us lurk
> prematurely to make sure things are moving forward - as opposed to
> being discussed over and over again.

I don't want to go coding on my own and hiding like a recluse. I'd prefer
that people didn't think that as it's not true. I'd be ready to have a
complete proposal sometime next week. However, telephones where I'll be will
have an $8/minute price tag associated with them -- and will be so noisy
that a modem *might* be able to eek out 1200 baud with latencies longer than
melting ice. At least that is what I've been told. If it works out
differently, then I'll be quicker about it.

> You probably have to be a little careful with the term revolution, as
> you can't expect that everybody here is familiar with the thread on
> general@jakarta dating back to January. Revolution always has the
> connotation of replacing something old and bad, probably killing a few
> people from the old system (and usually of eating its own
> children). *I* know this is not the context you intend to use it in,
> so I have no problem with the term here.

I've dug the message out of archives and will be forwarding it here in a
minute or two.

>>     An optional servlet layer which can access build files and would
>>     allow execution of build tasks remotely. This is targeted
>>     squarely at setting up build and test farms on a multitude of
>>     environments.
> I think this is just a special implementation of
>>     Framework for execution in several modes -- single shot,
>>     repeated, and gui activated.

True enough -- just with emphasis. :)

James Duncan Davidson                              
                                                                  !try; do()

View raw message