ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mansour Al Akeel <>
Subject Re: NIO 2.0 == Ant 2.0? was Re: Java NIO support
Date Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:57:56 GMT
In fact I was thinking about the same thing. The idea of forking Ant and
rewrite parts of it to use Java 7 NIO, and introduce java plugin frame
work crossed my mind few times.

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Bruce Atherton <> wrote:

> I actually wanted to discuss Java 7 on the list. I went through its
> features a while ago and got really excited when I read through NIO 2.0. It
> does so much that Ant has to struggle with, and so much that Ant can't do.
> I spent some time starting to implement a very simple (only a few tasks)
> new version of Ant that started from Java 7. Personal issues have taken me
> out of the game for a while, but I've still been wondering, could Java 7
> and NIO 2.0 be a good reason to create Ant 2.0?
> I realize I am violating "Shut up and show me the code". While I
> personally won't be able to help much for the foreseeable future, I've seen
> communities be revitalized by creating a new codebase. It attracts new
> committers who have been annoyed by the previous bug/feature combinations
> and get excited about the possibilities of helping to create a new
> codebase. Cocoon did it twice, although I wouldn't recommend that because
> the people attracted by Cocoon 2.2 went away because they felt their
> efforts were wasted thanks to Cocoon 3.0.
> It could be a way to sweep away the kind of cruft that is holding up the
> release and to redesign Ant to reflect all the lessons learned about how to
> build software in the last 10 years. Or it could be I'm the only one who
> read through the NIO 2.0 features and instantly thought about rewriting Ant.
> What do you guys think about it?
> On 2/5/2012 11:25 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2012-02-05, Mansour Al Akeel wrote:
>>  I have been looking and developing some custom task for ant, for the last
>>> few days. I noticed that ant tasks don't use directly. I am
>>> assuming this is due to the way behave on different
>>> platforms,
>>> and the support for patterns .... etc.
>> You must not forget that parts of Ant have been written at a time where
>> Java2 was too new to require it as runtime environment.
>>  However, now with java 7, we have the Path class that is very convenient
>>> to
>>> use. I think having this will make writing tasks easier, by cuting down
>>> the
>>> steps to convert between ants Path and java.nio.file.Path.
>>> Are there any interests ?
>> Yes, there is.
>> Just now we have voted to accept Java5 (yes, 5, not 7) as our minimum
>> requirement for Ant's trunk following the upcoming 1.8.3 release.  This
>> means we can not use Java7 features directly.
>> One approach that may be possible is to write a FileUtils replacement
>> using Java7 features.  Almost all file system interactions of Ant go
>> through FileUtils and Ant's core could detect at runtime whether Java7
>> is around and use the matching FileUtils class.
>> Stefan
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message