ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeffrey E Care <>
Subject Re: NIO 2.0 == Ant 2.0? was Re: Java NIO support
Date Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:37:20 GMT
Bruce Atherton <> wrote on 02/13/2012 01:25:30 PM:

> 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?
> ...
> 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.

I think you have to enumerate what you want to accomplish with a complete 
rewrite and what the compelling reasons are for such an undertaking. 

I agree that there are many compelling features in NIO 2 that I would like 
to see leveraged in Ant but I have to say that I'm not seeing a straight 
line from NIO 2 to a complete rewrite of Ant. For a less drastic approach 
maybe we could re-write only those tasks that would benefit the most from 
NIO 2's features. Put them in a different package and perhaps even put 
them in their own antlib.

Putting task implementations to the side, what is there in the core of Ant 
that would benefit from NIO 2 or other parts of JDK 7?
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message