ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Les Hughes <>
Subject RE: continuing development for ant 1.4
Date Thu, 05 Apr 2001 09:31:35 GMT

I'd have to agree with you Stefan on this. You're right in that <jar> is
pretty much core whereas war ear rar car and what other combinations of
[a-z]ar that Sun dreams up for J2EE would make perfect candidates for a J2EE
library - I see the EJB and perhaps the WebLogic tasks ending up there as

As for what's core - that's a whole can of worms I don't want to start
shouting about. Eg. Is a java compiler really core? You could argue either
way. If it is, is javac core and 3rd party jikes not. Damn, looks like I've
already go my can opener out ;-)

But I'm not sure that I'd want to wait for 2.x rather than starting to
create (augment) J2EE stuff now for 1.4 onwards. Perhaps moving War to an
optional.j2ee package would be a start? Stuff like this is obviously not
core - or is it?



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Bodewig []
> Sent: 04 April 2001 09:57
> To:
> Subject: Re: continuing development for ant 1.4
> Jose Alberto Fernandez <> wrote:
> >> From: Stefan Bodewig []
> >>
> >> Les Hughes <> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In my case, I'm waiting on a decision on <ear>
> >>
> >> Honestly, I'm closer to removing <war> than adding <ear> - if it
> >> wasn't for backwards compatibility.
> >>
> > 
> > Stefan, can you explain why you feel this way?
> Before people start to explain the benefits of <war> to me, I'd better
> say that I really like this task and use it a lot - just look at the
> @author tag in and you'll know ;-)
> Well, the reason I'd rather remove <war> is that there will be coming
> a whole lot of <?ar> tasks that extend <jar> in the same way.  
> This is great and I really appreciate the additional syntax checking
> they'll provide and all this, but they are special purpose tasks.  As
> such, they shouldn't be part of the set of core tasks - this is true
> for a whole bunch of other tasks in Ant's CVS as well.  In retrospect,
> I regret that I didn't put into the optional package.
> By adding more and more special purpose tasks now - read before we
> really have some means to deal with non-core tasks - will make it more
> difficult to decide which tasks should be part of the core and which
> should be moved into separate task libraries - at least I fear this
> will be the case.
> This is not much more than an uneasy feeling - and I'm far from
> forcing Pete to remove the task now that he has committed it as I
> could by vetoing his commit (at least temporary, until he wears me
> down 8-).
> > Maybe they should be moved to the infamous contribution area.
> Once it is there, yes. But I think the contribution area doesn't make
> too much sense before we have the task library concept ready.
> Stefan

View raw message