ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jose Alberto Fernandez <JFernan...@viquity.com>
Subject RE: Ant -> Make? Ick! - Never!
Date Wed, 18 Oct 2000 00:45:40 GMT
> From: Peter Donald [mailto:donaldp@locus.apache.org]
> 
> >>  DH> I think test-for-equality is such a basic functionality
> >> 
> >> It is basic, I agree, but test for inequality isn't more 
> sophisticated
> >> and then ...
> >> 
> >
> >But I provided a test for inequality: unless="a=b" tests for 
> a not being b.
> >so that to me was not an argument.
> 
> but someone surely would - it would be such a minor step. 
> Then of course
> you would add less-than/greater-than etc

I guess I did not express myself correctly:
 Test for equality: if="a=b"
 Test for inequality: unless="a=b"
the test for inequality is already there, along with the test for equality
so there is nothing to fear on that regard.

With respect to less-than and greater-than, properties are uninterpreted
strings hence I do not think one can just "add" these operations without a
way to declare the properties as something other than Strings. That would be
adding new data-types.
The only thing left would be lexicographical comparison, but that to me is
such an useless thing unless you are doing a SORT (not the case here) that I
doubt it will ever come up.

In my opinion, there is a clear line that we can set. In which equality
comparison is in and all the rest are out.

> 
> >>  DH> (although I think it's perfectly reasonable to offer it as an
> >>  DH> optional task, since optional tasks should be able to 
> do whatever
> >>  DH> anyone wants them to)
> >> 
> >> We agree here as well - and I don't think Jose Alberto's <case> has
> >> been ruled out completely, just put into a loop, waiting for the
> >> extension mechanism to come.
> >> 
> >
> >This is nice to hear. Of course, if I were to convince you 
> guys that "if"
> >is just as good. I will be even happier.
> 
> I am pretty sure that it would never get through. There are a lot more
> committers on this project than who are active and would 
> oppose it once
> they found out about it. Hence I will say it again - do this 
> stuff in a
> frontend and stream new build.xml to Ant. If you want the 
> functionality
> badly add it ;)
> 

Well, to tell you the truth there is nothing stoping me to just posting
my <case> task. And if ANT really gets popular, with the APIs for 2.0
there will be nothing stoping anyone from defining whatever tasks they want
and offering them on the net. Are the committers planing to play the 
thought police game?: "Such task is forbidden to be written" I doubt it.

> personally I favour xslt to do this and everything else been 
> asked but as
> long as frontend interface is there anyone can do whatever ;)
> 

So how is a frontend suppose to fix this? Do I need to create yet another
XML variant so that the "frontend" reads properties files and takes action?
I hope you are not expecting every developer in a project to maintain their 
own versions of the XSLTStylesheets (which are way more cryptic than ANT
itself).

Anyway, this is why I was trying to keep away of this thread.

Cheers,

Jose Alberto

 


Mime
View raw message