ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Hatcher <>
Subject Re: Antlib descriptor
Date Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:22:58 GMT
On Friday, April 25, 2003, at 01:39  PM, Costin Manolache wrote:
> New thread.

+1 :)

> However I'm more convinced than ever that the XML should use a subset 
> of
> ant, and reuse the same processing infrastructure. I.e. not another 
> parser
> or rules.

I'll defer commenting on this until I ponder it more and see what 
others say about it.

> Erik and few others seem to believe that the XML vocabulary doesn't 
> matter,
> and anything can be generated by xdoclet and processed. If this is the 
> case
> - then using ant syntax in the antlib descriptor would be as good as
> another syntax.

Well, again, don't stretch my thoughts on this too far.  I meant it 
didn't matter *now*, in terms of getting it migrated to HEAD and having 
it in a place handy for all of us to work with and evolve it.  It does 
matter though.

> - maybe we want antlibs to have some initialization. This can be 
> easily done
> by allowing more ant elements in the descriptor
> - maybe we'll want to allow antlib to declare targets - that could be 
> used
> in depends or antcall ( <target name="foo"
> depends="myAntLib:antlibTarget"/> ).

Wow.... ok, still pondering....

> Again - those are just examples, there are a lot of things that could 
> be
> done easily. Even if you don't need any of this - it would be nice to
> not have to repeat the long and painfull evolution of the main xml
> processor.

It'll take some thinking and convincing for me to see why antlib needs 
descriptors that get processed like Ant build files.  Something as 
simple as Digester would seem to do the trick (bootstrap craziness?!)  
but as I said, I want to see what others think and let myself consider 
your idea a bit more.


View raw message