ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Hatcher <>
Subject Re: Optional task: Visual Basic.NET compile
Date Sun, 08 Sep 2002 03:15:31 GMT
Steve Loughran wrote:
> What I'd like to do would be to leverage the <defineset> and <libset> stuff
> of <cc> for .net defines and references -there is no point reinventing that
> stuff. But to do that, we'd have to pull the <cc> codebase in to ant's CVS
> tree. Do you think it is time? I do.

+1 on bring several of the ant-contib pieces over.  I've now started 
using <propertycopy> in my builds - its quite handy.  And <osfamily> 
makes sense to bring over without there being too many battles either, 

This is a bit off-topic for pulling <cc> in, but back to the .NET stuff. 
   Since there is already NAnt and NDoc, it seems a bit much for us in 
Java-land to reinvent the wheel.  If their projects are good enough for 
.NET development, doesn't it make sense for us to deprecate what we have 
in that area and refer to them?  Ant can call their build and they could 
call us when projects need to cross those boundaries.

Are there technical reasons why Ant's .NET stuff is superior or does 
more than what NAnt does?  I'm open to more discussion on this, and not 
against Ant having .NET stuff (I see that Avalon has a C# port in the 
works too).


p.s. not to start a flame war or anything, but i've come to the 
realization recently that perhaps open-source development is going to be 
bad (or at least give Sun tougher challenges) in the near future - C# 
ports of all of Jakarta and other Java projects would make Java-to-.NET 
developer migration a whole lot easier.  Reply-to: me, don't clutter the 
list with replies on this flame-bait :))

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

View raw message