costinm@covalent.net wrote on 07/09/2002 12:48:14 PM:
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
[snip]
>
> Not sure I understand what you want. Changing the <project> element name
> in build.xml to use a different name you feel is more apropriate ?
> Are you kidding ?
No, I'm saying we need to look at what things are used for and name them
appropriately. <project> has very little to do with project details, and
more to do with <build> details.
> A number of people ( usually those who -1 the adding of scripting
> elements) believe ant should be more 'descriptive', and not
> procedural. That's why it's called <project> - it is intended to
> describe the project, including how to build various components.
But what it does *NOW* has nothing to do with a project. Are you saying
there should be one file to describe project information like the cvs
repository, sub projects etc and that same file should contain all the
build processes?
> Most people only 'describe' how to build and test it, and do that
> in a procedural way. That's where the need for <if>, <while>, etc comes
> from, and that's why ant files become ugly and hard to understand.
>
> However many ant asks are pretty high level, and nothing prevent
> adding more 'descriptive' and higher level information ( using data
> types). Whatever is in the gump descriptor could very well be
> in an ant file.
>
> Of course, the biggest focus is on describing how to build various
> targets - that's what people need the most. I agree we should add
> more 'descriptive'/higher level data types under <project>, maybe
> what gump uses.
Now you've gotta be kidding. Keep all the project info and all the build
processes in one file?
> And what's wrong with a gradual process ? Especially for important
things
> I think we should take all the time it is needed. If something is
obvious
> and all commiters are +1, it'll probably get added fast.
Nothing's wrong with a gradual process, as long as it has a well defined
goal. This hasn't been the case with Ant 1 and Ant 2. I can't remember the
announcement being made that the Ant 2 proposals were being subsumed into
Ant 1 and all efforts should go there.
In fact there's been a lot of effort recently especially in Myrmidon
> If there are doubts - then we should spend more time finding a better
> solution.
I'd be happy if there was a clear committed path forward. It seems that
some committers are interested in Ant 2, and others are keeping the status
quo. But where is the common direction?
> Costin
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Work: http://www.multitask.com.au
Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers
|