ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Conor MacNeill <>
Subject Re: ClassLoaders ( was: Re: We need to stop the lies)
Date Sat, 02 Mar 2002 21:57:12 GMT
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:

> This is fine. But still, the main drive of my question stands:
>     For people that are proposing alternative syntax for ANT, how
>     would they tell a basic task like <ant> to use a different parser?

Well, I think the contract of the <ant> task is to process an XML based 
build file. If someone wants to proces a different syntax, they need to 
either provide their own version of <ant> or augment <ant> to support 
different buildfile types.

>     Would they have to provide their own <ant> implementation and
>     replace the default <ant>? 

Yes, they could do that.

>     If an IDE constructs a model on the fly (no XML file) how can <antcall>
>     work (have you change the implementation?) since it only calls <ant>.

Of course I changed the implementation since I did not want to reparse a 
model that has already been parsed. This is the mutant implementation of 

     public void callTarget(Map properties, List targets)
          throws ExecutionException {
         runBuild(frame.getProject(), properties, targets);

Since the project model just represents the buildfile in mutant, this is 
easy to do - there is no execution context info stored in the project model.

> This is where I kind of get puzzled on how worth is allowing IDEs to
> pass their own pre-build model. It seems to me you will need the written
> XML for any real build, and if that is the case then we should really define
> the interface to be the XML and not the Project instance.

I disagree.


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

View raw message