ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <bode...@bost.de>
Subject Re: Ant -> Make? Ick! - Never!
Date Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:12:08 GMT
>>>>> "DH" == Diane Holt <holtdl@yahoo.com> writes:

 DH> Make wasn't all that bad to begin with, but it got suckier and
 DH> suckier the more bloated it got, and the more flavors of it
 DH> people felt a need to create.

And you said we wouldn't agree? 8-)

 DH> But the thing I don't like about it as it currently exists is the
 DH> need it has to rely on a wrapper-script, [...]

This is why I'd prefer to see a Java wrapper on top of Ant that could
handle this. Keep Ant simple - and keep that front end simple as it
shouldn't have to deal with tasks or compiling or ... but "only" needs
to contain a logic engine.

 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 ...

If we could agree on where to stop, that'd be fine, but I doubt we
can. test-for-existence seemed to be too much at one point and we
wouldn't be discussing these issues if it had been ruled out.

 DH> (as well as for expanding a name-given-as-a-property [eg.,
 DH> if="${prop}", which I think should also be a basic capability,
 DH> and actually assumed it was, until I tried it and it didn't
 DH> work]),

There are a couple of attributes where ${} are not expanded - all
attributes of <project> and <target>. Not sure if we should change
that for consistency - using ${user.dir} the basedir attribute of
project sounds like a reasonable thing to do for example.

 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.

Stefan

Mime
View raw message