ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dominique Devienne <DDevie...@lgc.com>
Subject RE: antlib
Date Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:20:24 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Costin Manolache [mailto:cmanolache@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 1:57 PM
>
> >> The common use case is defining tasks and datatypes.
> >
> > So you -1 roles because you don't need them, at the expense of all the
> > people who need to declare more than tasks and datatypes, but
> conditions,
> > filters, mappers, and for me my own custom extension like the
> > buildpathresolver???
> 
> 
> No, because they add complexity to the simple case and to the lower layer.

Really? Complexity? There's lost of complexity in Ant tasks, and people are
glad its there, because it solves real problems.

Not being able to define these new terrific 'things' that are not
tasks/types is essential in Ant, and you are simply dismissing it for some
complexity reasons? People who don't want complexity do not write custom
implementation of tasks/types/filters/etc... in the first place. And that
complexity you're talking about is in your eyes only!

Tell me what's the point of AntLib if it's just to define tasks/types? Adds
nothing over a simple <taskdef> + <typedef>!

You want to perpetuate Parametrizable, and <mapper classname=""/>, etc???

You keep talking about low-level, and do something else at a higher level,
but the low-level is just beans as you pointed out. No need for any kind of
AntLib to deal with that. AntLib is precisely useful for the higher-level
stuff!

Sounds like you have never needed to write anything but custom tasks and
types Costin, but it is a major deficiency of Ant not be able to plug in a
consistent manner all these other 'types' of typed bean you so easily
dismiss. --DD

Mime
View raw message