ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vincent Massol" <>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Sandbox for Wayward Ant Tasks
Date Fri, 04 May 2001 17:02:12 GMT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Vernum" <>
To: "'ANT-dev'" <>
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 2:52 PM
Subject: RE: [Proposal] Sandbox for Wayward Ant Tasks

> (the mail actually comes from the commons list, but Peter's
>  comment seems the most appropriate one to reply to)
> From: Peter Donald []
> > At 03:14  2/5/01 -0700, Scott Sanders wrote:
> > >I will try and initiate that over on Ant-dev.  My intention was to
> > >finish the functionality to enable the xpath task to make it
> > into the
> > >distribution, so an ant-sandox is appropriate.
> >
> > But remember that the main reason they are not in the ant project is
> > because the committers do not want them there and they think
> > it would be a
> > nightmare to support and pain for our users (especially in transition
> > between 1.x and 2.0). So realize that there may be a reason for it not
> > being done despite everyone thinking it would be a good idea
> > for ant2 ;)
> However, it is quite common for the ant commiter to respond to a request
> with
> "It is possible to write a task to do that, but it won't be part
>        of ant"
> An AntOn/AntCallOn/Foreach task is a common example, and there are others.
> In the past month I think I have written 3 tasks, none of which I expect
> (or necessarily want) to see form part of the core/optional tasks, but
> which clearly support a defined use case from an ant user.
> I think it is quite reasonable to tell users, "We don't like that idea,
> but could implement a task for it yourself", but when there is no clear
> place to share those tasks, it's a bit hard.
> In the last 3 days, I've replied to at least 4 people's requests, saying
> "I wrote such a task - search through ant-dev". I don't think that's
> really a good situation.
> I have tasks that probably shouldn't be part of the support ant
> but which other people want to use.
> Should I take these to sourceforge?
> Is that really the solution that people want?
> The commiters probably see less need for an "ant-contrib" module, since
> can commit any task they think is useful, but it should be clear to all,
> there are useful tasks that are not being accepted as part of ant.
> Even if these tasks don't fit the direct goals of ant, that doesn't mean
> should be lost.
> Other than the adminstration difficulties of managing a new cvs module,
> is the complaint against having a set of contrib tasks? It certainly seems
> better than the alternative.

Just to tell you I completely agree with all your comments.


View raw message