ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: Ant 2 et al.
Date Mon, 08 Jul 2002 23:55:59 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi <> wrote on 07/08/2002 07:00:36 PM:

> > I've never seen anyone who implicitly understood why some tasks were 
> > allowed outside targets. Or what was a datatype vs a task, nor where 
> > was allowed.
> These are minor issues.
> We're talking bout the project/task/target/datatype architecture, not of 

> how it's implemented.

Well, how it's used is more important than either architecture or 
implementation to the end users.

The current 'paradigm' of ant to an end user is not clear. To recap on one 
of my points to Conor, a 'project' in the context of a build process makes 
no sense to the first time user, as there is little or no 'project' 
information in the build file. Call it 'Compiler' and people will think, 
initially, that it's going to do compilation. A name is very important to 

> This is the point, IMO you should never give the user ability of 
> redefining stuff. I'm working now to make the import tag handle this by 
> renaming names on the fly if requested.
> If you have build files that are so diverse in how they define things 
> you just use <ant>.
> Even in Java you can have name collisions if you don't follow the 
> package naming conventions.

And import provides a package name facility? I thought at the moment it 
didn't. Anyway, import is a good addition rather than a problem :)

> > Also, the thrill of optional.jar and friends today leaves me cold. Ant 

> > could do with some serious redefinition of the task categories.
> ?
> Antlib will make it more granular, what's the problem?
The problem is these ideas have been around a long time. It seems a 
gradual process of adding them in is happening, rather than a concerted 
look at what the proposals have to offer. I think someone first broached 
the ant lib concept almost 18 months ago...and an implementation's been in 
Mutant and Myrmidon for how long....?

We need to revisit the requirements for Ant 2, and agree to start 
implementing them in Ant1 if that's the decision. But have a bogus set of 
requirements dangling for years stops us moving forward.

dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting

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