ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: What flavour of scripting?
Date Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:13:25 GMT
> Recap of my thoughts on the subject so far: I believe that conditional
> processing and iteration are valid requirements.  This, however, does not
> mean that I believe that they should be implemented as tasks.  Wildcards,
> recursion, and if/unless attributes are all valid ways of addressing these
> needs.

> In fact, I'm mildly against having a <foreach> task as it forces is to
> examine the shortcomings of the existing tasks.

> Furthermore, I believe that properties should be variables, there should be
> additional and simpler means to register new tasks than the current
> properties file, and that there should be a means to pass text and/or cdata
> to objects configured by Ant.

+1 if we make variables substitution explicit. I don't like the fact
that the XML reader does variable magic ( please don't show me the CVS
logs or old mails !).

+1 on text/cdata content. Please take a look at XmlMapper - you can
cut&paste the code ( or at least use the same pattern - if you have a
better pattern we should change XmlMapper ).

For registering new tasks - we can use the .antrc/ Most of
it is implemented in ( reading a file with normal
properties, like ). As long as it's an explicit call.

> Given this support, support for a <script language="JavaScript"> task is
> trivial to implement with BSF.  Furthermore, at the same time you get
> access to a number of other languages, including all the ones I've heard
> mentioned so far.  I could imagine that this could be handy in much the
> same way that JavaScript is handy inside of HTML - special case one to six
> line programs tailored to a specific need.  Of course, this support should
> be conditionally compiled into Ant based on the presence of bsf in your
> classpath ;-)
> I'm just reticent to proceed with all the -1's flying around.

+1 on JavaScript/BSF or any _existing_ language - as long as it's clearly
documented that it is supposed to be used only if _really_ needed. I'm
just against turning xml into a PL, and against adding a language without
a definition ( data types, argument passing, etc)


View raw message