ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Duncan Davidson <james.david...@eng.sun.com>
Subject Re: [RFE] Richer Task Specification
Date Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:26:14 GMT
on 2000/06/23 06:36, rubys@us.ibm.com at rubys@us.ibm.com wrote:

>> I'll go for pure as long as it can be explained in a parapgraph of good
>> docs. I'm hesitant to go for expediency. It's a fine line obviously. :)
> 
> I wasn't arguing for expediency.  Purity is in the eye of the beholder.

Always. :) And I understand your points. I wasn't meaning to come across as
saying that I didn't agree with your position. Merely that, if possible, I
want pure and easy. :)

> Note: please return your flame throwers to their holsters.  I'm a big fan
> of Java - particularly when your intent is to write objects.  Back to Ant.

Hhehehehehe.. :)

> There are other "containers" being explored: async and system come to mind.
> I have yet to see a suggestion that every task must be embedded in an
> "async" element, in order to capture the desired the synchronicisity of the
> tasks contained within, or anybody worrying about the fact that the same
> tasks can be used both inside and outside of async elements.
> 
> My feeling is that all of these concepts should not get in your way if you
> don't have need for them..  If you do, they will be available and build
> gently upon what you have already learned.

Yes.. We are in total agreement here my friend. Now we just have to figure
out what those gentle and approachable models resolve to. But I think that
we are getting there.

I would like to take the thoughts you put down earlier about the objects
that should be exposed to a script binding into the Ant core doc. Any
complaints?

.duncan


Mime
View raw message