ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jose Alberto Fernandez" <>
Subject Re: <antlib> (was RE: Ant 1.9 & Task Packaging)
Date Sun, 27 Jan 2002 00:47:53 GMT
From: "Tim Dawson" <>

> Adam,
> It depends on how you define backwards compatibility. If all we're concerned
> about is that the same build.xml works, then I have a proposal. Why not
> create an "experimental.jar" to go along with the "optional.jar" for new
> tasks/typedefs, and by convention use a prefix "x-" for the element names.
> If someone uses experimental types or tasks, then they are accepting the
> work of fixing the build.xml file *when* (not if) it changes into the final
> form.
> For example, if we start with:
> <x-antlib file="blah/blah.jar"/>
> then another idea is added to the mix:
> <x-antlib2 location="blah/blah.jar" useXML="true" useTools="true"/>
> We throw this out in Ant 1.5 (for example) the community discusses,
> thrashes, etc. and finally we merge the two, remove <x-antlib> and
> <x-antlib2>, and release <antlib> in Ant 1.6 as:
> <antlib file="blah/blah.jar" useXML="true"/>
> We could do some of this actually right in Ant 1.x.

I think this is a wonderful idea. This will allow us to experiment and still
give some sense of consistency in the product.

> Again, this only works if the issue is the build.xml. When trying out deeper
> changes to core, e.g. classloaders, introspection, roles (cool idea!), etc.
> then yeah, those are issues that would probably require creating a few
> branches, trying them out, and moving from there. The only problem with
> branching a lot of different code-worded projects is when people form an
> attachment to one way or another and you have problems merging them back in.

Jose Alberto

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

View raw message