ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <dona...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Anteater... I'm Baaaack...
Date Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:06:02 GMT
At 08:58  15/12/00 -0500, James Cook wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Stefan Bodewig" <bodewig@apache.org>
>> Representing a Task as a DOM Node - i.e. using DOM as the object model
>> of Ant has been ruled out for various reasons. The DOM API forces you
>> to implement a big interface we don't need IMHO.
>
>I don't think I agree here. I am unaware of any "big interface" the the
DOM API
>forces you to implement.

count the number of methods it requires. How many of those will ant
actually use ? Probably 20% - the remaining 80% are overkill and cruft.

>I feel that elegant use of DOM in Antidote, goes a long way towards
addressing
>the two-way capabilities and GUI integration (TreeNode) that can be
achieved. 

Any two-way capabilities that are added but are not needed by the core are
overhead. Ant should not be engineered around how it may need to be used
but how it actually is used. There is no problem making it possible to use
it in different contexts as long as there is no cost to the core - but with
w3c DOM there is. Hence why it will never get put in core.

>I
>guess I have yet to see such a two-way model implemented by the SAX
interface or
>other proposed Ant implementations.

Both proposals implement it as does another that will be checked in
shortly. They are not as standard but it is easy enough to create a smaller
more directed interface.

Cheers,

Pete

*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*


Mime
View raw message