ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Glenn A. McAllister" <>
Subject Re: question and idea.
Date Sun, 17 Feb 2002 00:12:19 GMT
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Erik Hatcher wrote:

> The philosophical(?) (and rhetorical :) question is: why should Ant be tied
> to XML?  Ant is really the engine that processes the build DAG and its
> associated tasks.  How it got into that representation is not really that
> relevant and there are certainly plenty of interesting and practical
> possibilities that would come from such decoupling.
> Having a build.xml is still an important practical thing so that builds are
> portable rather than a build description being tied back to an IDE directly
> or some other mechanism. And becoming decoupled completely from build.xml
> opens up some good doors and some pitfalls with IDE's possibly wanting to
> drive Ant's engine without a build.xml (sure, they could do it now, but its
> not really very easy).

And this point of view I can agree with.  (Apparently my $0.02 goes
further than I thought.)

Out of curiosity (I've been out of the Ant game for FAR too long) have any
strides in this direction been made/proposed for Ant2?

Glenn McAllister
SOMA Networks, Inc.

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

View raw message