ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject Re: [Ant2] Tasks as siblings of <target>
Date Tue, 06 Nov 2001 10:08:42 GMT
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 20:56, Tim Dawson wrote:
> Peter Donald writes:
> > > In fact, the property/available/etc. might be required in
> >
> > order to do task
> >
> > > definitions properly.
> >
> > -1
> How about an explanation of your reasoning?
> How about if I use an environment entry that is required to
> find the location of a jar file that has my tasks in them?

These are things that exist outside the build file and should be defined in 
build environment. We are essentially talking import/#include style 
statements. If you look at C they have standard include paths (though they 
also allow users to enhance them). Java has the Classpath. Ant will probably 
have type.lib.path or something similar. It will be augmentable by users but 
this should not be required in all but the most exceptional of cases (given 
we will have reasonable defaults).

> > it will still be possible in ant2 but the standard approach
> > will be to use
> > <import/> (like import for java). Thus hopefully the use of
> > oldstyle taskdef
> > will be minimized.
> How, then, will this be possible if you plan to do up-front
> validation, i.e. before the task has been defined? Or does it
> simply note that a taskdef has occurred with the name and
> continue on? sounds like a lot of hardcoding in the parser
> to me.

what is "this"? It is difficult to understand what you are talking about.

validation does not occur in the parser. It happens after parsing and before 
execution. In some cases it will not be possible to validate the project 
model but we are trying to minimize those cases.

> > the solution to problem is to avoid problem? I don't see that
> > as a good
> > thing. We want to validate the build file as much as we can
> > before execution
> > starts.
> I'm sorry, I don't see why we *need* this.

we don't *need* lots of things but it is wanted.

> Can you point me to the
> relevant thread where this was decided so I don't have to have
> you explain it to me?

I don't think there was a single thread in which it was decided but a lot of 
changes in Ant2 is making it more strongly typed and making it harder to do 
stupid things. This really just follows as a natural consequence.



 Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message