ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Diane Holt <hol...@yahoo.com>
Subject RE: [PROPOSAL] Optional Tasks
Date Wed, 13 Dec 2000 02:39:15 GMT
I'm not clear on what "core" is being defined as -- are we talking about
what's currently labelled "Built-In Tasks" in the doc? If that's the case,
then I think you should sort by what would be considered "basic build-tool
functionality". The current list isn't bad -- things like <javac>, <jar>,
<java>, and <javadoc> wouldn't ordinarily be considered "basic", but Ant
is a Java-centric build-tool, so in its case, I would consider them that
way. But I would put the <cvs> task in Optional along with the other SCM
tasks. Other likely candidates (imho) are <genkey> (but that's because I'm
not sure what it's even used for), <patch>, <sql>, <signjar>, <style>,
and
probably <mail> (even though I find it handy, I wouldn't consider it
"basic functionality").

Then I think you should sort through the "Optional Tasks" (including any
you move out of Built-In and into Optional), and have "Optional Tasks" be
ones that, while not basic, are still supported by ant-dev (ie., only Ant
committers can update them [as it is currently], either based on their own
changes or submitted patches). I would think that (at least) <jlink>,
<perforce>, and <vssget> could move out of Optional (into Contributed),
and <renameext> could move into Built-In.

Then have a "Contributed Tasks" section (even if it actually lives on some
other site) as a place for people to submit the tasks they've written (or
where they can submit a link to tasks they've put up on yet other sites),
and which are unsupported by ant-dev.

Diane

--- Jose  Alberto Fernandez <JFernandez@viquity.com> wrote:
> > From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
> > 
> > 
> > Jon Stevens <jon@latchkey.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > The definition of a "core" task is a task that Ant really cannot
> > > live without. This would be similar to taglibs that are part of the
> > > core JSP specification.
> > > 
> > > The definition of an "optional" task is a task that really should be
> > > packaged with the product it serves.
> > > 
> > > However, there are cases where this is not feasible. Therefore, we
> > > will provide a separate CVS repository and mailing lists that serve
> > > as a storage and support area for tasks that cannot be bundled with
> > > the original products. 
> > 
> > And then there is a bunch of tasks that are not needed to build Ant
> > and that are not related to a specific product either. <rmic>, <war>,
> > <exec>, <native2ascii> and so on. They should go into the repository
> > of optional tasks as well.
> > 
> 
> I do not think I agree with your interpretation of the definition of
> core
> vs. optional. Just to say that only things needed TO BUILD ANT are core
> seems to me to be a very bad definition of what the core is. So what 
> happens if some other task that was not needed today becomes needed for
> building ANT in the future, do we have to move it from the optioal
> package
> to core?
> 
> ANT cannot be te standard, just because and, for example, do not uses
> the 
> <rename> task we cannot say that <rename> is not core. I see here a big
> gray
> area, but for example I would think that all tasks that only rely on JDK
> not on other JARs nor other executables, can be part of core. <rmic>,
> <exec>
> <native2ascii> are tipical examples of things I think we need to put in.
> 
> <war> on the other hand, is in a more fuzzy area because although it may
> not
> realy need some other tools it only relates to some particular java
> extension. So in that sense to be useful you need more stuff.
> 
> With respect to <exec> It is the basic task for people to be able to
> write their own local tasks or <targets> that connect to other tools
> in their own environment. If people cannot rely on having a facility
> like
> this available out of the box, ANT will loose usability.
>  
> > So if we can clarify the definition of what goes into the separate
> > repository, that's fine with me.
> > 
> 
> I am all for it. But lets keep in mind that we do not loose the
> usability
> of the ANT core because we have some unrealistic border line on what
> should be core and what not. And as I say, ANT itself cannot be the
> standard.
> 
> Jose Alberto


=====
(holtdl@yahoo.com)



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/

Mime
View raw message