ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: Ant 2 et al.
Date Tue, 09 Jul 2002 03:41:55 GMT wrote on 07/09/2002 12:48:14 PM:

> On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 wrote:
> 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 
> I think we should take all the time it is needed. If something is 
> 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

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message