ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: Ant 2 et al.
Date Mon, 08 Jul 2002 06:03:41 GMT wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi writes: 
>> wrote:
>> > Long Email Warning....
>> >
>> > I've spent some time this weekend reading up on the various proposals 
>> > Ant 2, and my first reaction is:
>> >
>> > 'Is Ant dead?'
>>-Javaworld editors' choice 2002
>>-Development software 2002 Productivity award
>>If this is _dead_ ;-)
> IBM's VisualAge for Java was a JavaWorld Editor's choice finalist from 
> memory last year, and it's now a defunct product. Winning awards proves 
> how good it is, not whether development has stagnated.
>>What instead I personally am starting to think, is that Ant*2* is dead.
> Glad to see someone come out and say it. Personally, this would be a 
> tragedy for me, given the limitations of Ant 1.x.


>>The proposals are doing an excellent job in driving the incremental
>>changes in the 1.* releases, which are gaining the Ant2 features 
> gradually.
> Which isn't really the point though is it? The idea of proposals is for an 
> eventual vote, not as a sandbox for development.

Well, maybe, but I find what is happening here quite interesting as per 
the dynamics.
I never thought that the proposals would be put in the codebase piece by 
piece, quite interesting outcome IMHO.

Anyway probably we will switch codebase, but the transition of Ant1 will 
have it more aligned in features to Ant2, making the eventual switch 
less painful for users.

>>I think that Ant has big room to grow, as it's doing now; there is the
>>new <import> tag proposal and patch, the antlib one.
> Ant definitely has lots of places to grow into. The question is 'How?' not 
> whether it will. Currently we are staying on an evolutionary path with 
> little or no discussion of the alternatives.

Ah, ok.
With this I agree.

>>If things continue as now, Ant2 will (maybe) come out of Ant 1.9 as a
>>natural evolution.
> Possibly. And it may also take a lot longer to get there than if we adopt 
> one of the proposals now, and freeze the Ant 1.x code.

The proposals now are not ready IMHO for a code switch.
I know that it will take more time, but it could make a better product.

I've seen many projects change codebase and really suffer it, so if it's 
to be done, it will have to give substantial benefits.
I don't see (maybe I'm wrong) that these changes are that important to 
justify the codebase switch.

Excuse me if I repeat myself, but what are the features that Ant doesn't 
give you that you need?
Maybe we could work to put them in Ant1.

>>Of course, this is my very personal guess.
> Ditto.

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

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

View raw message