ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject RE: [PROPOSAL] Optional Tasks
Date Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:52:13 GMT
At 01:16  13/12/00 +0100, Siberski, Wolf wrote:
>My suggestion would be to use a package naming schema which only
>reflects the kind of task, but not their status regarding core, 
>optional, etc.
>That would mean we have packages like
>  for Java, Javac, Rmic, etc.
>  for Rename, Copy, Chmod, etc.
>   for Cvs, P4Sync (Perforce), etc.
>Now we still have the packaging and dependency problem,
>but for this problem we only need a mechanism which partitions
>the tasks into task collections packaged as jar-Files
>(this is already planned for optional tasks, isn't it?). 
>E.g., we could have
>anttasks.jar      all tasks needed to build ant
>ejbtasks.jar      all tasks needed to develop/deploy EJBs
>installtasks.jar  all tasks needed to use Ant like InstallShield
>vajtasks.jar      all tasks used for Visual Age for Java integration
>There's no need to put all tasks of one package into 
>the same jar. Maybe it also makes sense to have
>overlapping task collections.
>All task collection jars which rely only on the JDK 
>could and should IMHO be provided by the nightly build,
>while tasks collection jars relying on external libs
>would only be provided with releases (if at all).
>Each jar would have its own Ant build file,
>so the user in need for an up-to-date version
>of a jar with external dependencies could 
>get the sources for just this jar and build it 
>himself (no need to build the complete Ant for 
>the 'mere mortals').
>It sounds extreme, but I'd prefer to include no
>task at all in the ant.jar. I think there is
>no single task which is needed by all Ant users.
>Especially for the use as installer there should 
>be no unneeded task included.
>Users wanting to build Ant with Ant could download 
>anttasks.jar to get everything they need.
>The Ant 'engine' itself needs no task at all.
>But with the package naming schema proposed this
>becomes a nearly unrelated discussion.
>Besides, it wouldn't be such an important
>decision anymore, because the task packaging 
>would be easily changeable.

+1 for everything you have said

>A third - also only slightly related - question
>is how to organize the CVS tree.

I prefer the monolithic repository - much easier to traverse for developer.
Requires some very specific includes but that should be no problem ;)



| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |

View raw message