ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jose Alberto Fernandez <>
Subject RE: Ant -> Make? Ick! - Never!
Date Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:01:34 GMT
OK, I had been trying hard to stay away of this topic but...

> From: Stefan Bodewig []
>  DH> But the thing I don't like about it as it currently exists is the
>  DH> need it has to rely on a wrapper-script, [...]
> This is why I'd prefer to see a Java wrapper on top of Ant that could
> handle this. Keep Ant simple - and keep that front end simple as it
> shouldn't have to deal with tasks or compiling or ... but "only" needs
> to contain a logic engine.

The main reason I am trying to move our project to ANT is to completely
eliminate any need for OS dependant scripts in our build process. Today we
develop on NT but need to deploy in a vast number of environments. So, the
need for a OS neutral development environment is escential.

>  DH> I think test-for-equality is such a basic functionality
> It is basic, I agree, but test for inequality isn't more sophisticated
> and then ...

But I provided a test for inequality: unless="a=b" tests for a not being b.
so that to me was not an argument.

> If we could agree on where to stop, that'd be fine, but I doubt we
> can. test-for-existence seemed to be too much at one point and we
> wouldn't be discussing these issues if it had been ruled out.

My argument on all this is that for ANT to be succesful in a open OS world,
it needs to be able to react to its environment. And to be able to react,
one needs to be able to define what to react to, hence the <available> task.

Simillarly, ANT has always being configurable, with the existance of the
special property values for "javac" and so on. The only thing I was trying
achieve with "if='a=b'" was to be able to use in my build process the same
I can do to configure which compiler to use. Not more.

>  DH> (although I think it's perfectly reasonable to offer it as an
>  DH> optional task, since optional tasks should be able to do whatever
>  DH> anyone wants them to)
> We agree here as well - and I don't think Jose Alberto's <case> has
> been ruled out completely, just put into a loop, waiting for the
> extension mechanism to come.

This is nice to hear. Of course, if I were to convince you guys that "if"
is just as good. I will be even happier.

Jose Alberto

View raw message