ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Erik Hatcher" <>
Subject Re: IntrospectionHelper request
Date Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:07:36 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Donald" <>

> > When will Ant2 (1.9?) be
> > released?  Why should <ejbjar>/XDoclet, and others have to live in agony
> > until then when my patch alleviates it until the new architecture is
> > released?
> preferably. That would maybe motivate some other committers or develoeprs
> help with Ant2 ...

I don't really think thats a reasonable argument... motivation by
constraining the current product is negative reinforcement.  Anyone with
children knows that doesn't work!  :)

> didn't you agree a bit back that we shouldn't be adding cruft to ant we
> is wrong and we wont be suporting in the future? What has changed your

I agree completely with that statement, although not sure I said it or not.
But, I don't believe DynamicConfigurator is wrong for Ant1.x so this
enhancement doesn't fit into that argument.  :)

All of the createX, addX, and setters are being morphed in Ant2 anyway, so
nothing in that realm of Ant1.x fits in Ant2, so its not like we're adding
flexibility that won't be present in Ant2.  Its already been decided that
Ant2 is not going to have the same ways of doing things that Ant1.x has and
that build.xml format will likely change dramatically too.

> > I assume we'll have an Ant 1.5 release in the near future.  With this
> > of extensibility capability it could perhaps extend Ant 1.5's lifespan
> > reduce the number of Ant 1.x releases we need to get to Ant2 - and we as
> > committers could devote more attention to the new architecture.
> thats one way of looking at it. Very few people are actually willing to
> in the work to create Ant2 as far as I can tell. Adding more and more
> onto ant1.x just raises the difficulty of actually getting an ant2

I don't agree with that argument.  The world is stuck with Ant 1.x for the
near future, and it certainly will live on for a while after Ant2 is
released as well.

Making Ant1.x more usable and extensible in the short term only seems like a
*good thing* to me.  So many benefits, and no negatives that I can see.

> > Are you -1'ing my enhancement?  Or just -0?  I've given my best examples
> > use-cases, so time for a decision I suppose.  :))
> Still -1 sorry - ;)
> pretty much for the same reasons I -1'ed it last time.

You -1'd it before because lack of use-cases, I thought.  I provided


I still don't get it.  :/

No point in asking for other committers feedback, I suppose, but certainly
I'd be interested to hear if others support my enhancement or disagree with
it.  I'd especially be interested in more arguments against it since Peter's
argument that it encourages committers to stick with Ant1.x longer doesn't
really seem applicable to me.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message