ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Duncan Davidson <dun...@x180.net>
Subject Re: [submit] optional task for Poet ptjavac compiler/enhancer
Date Wed, 06 Dec 2000 08:48:45 GMT
On 12/6/00 12:30 AM, "Stefan Bodewig" <bodewig@apache.org> wrote:

> Jon Stevens <jon@latchkey.com> wrote:
> 
>> Why are people submitting every task under the Sun to be included
>> with Ant?
>
> Because they want to use every tool under the sun with Ant and they
> don't have any influence on their tool developers.

It was never intended that all tasks end up in Ant core. That's what the
whole bit about taskdefs were supposed to do -- make it easy for somebody to
provide tasks from their own site or in a contrib. Of course that thought
wasn't finished in Ant 1.0 -- and never made it.

AntEater allows for taskpaths to be set up to further enable this... The way
it is right now forces all tasks to be in their own jars, but this is
temporary and a way to define tasks also just in your classpath will go in.
The goal with this is smaller, simpler...

> Not sure whether POET would care about their developers that want to
> use Ant for example - but if one of them steps up and offers an open
> source solution to his fellow developers I won't be the one to reject
> him.

It's not core though. It shouldn't be.

>> I just don't get it. Why are we bloating Ant like this?
> 
> This is an intermediate step.
> 
> Ant has become that successful that people are going wild and add
> tasks for everything. This is great.

It is great. However, there are two bad influences at work here -- 1)
Everybody has a neat way to further extend the relatively simple yet power
concept of mapping the XML data files into tasks and 2) people see this
simple thing as something that can be further abstracted out into something
more. As to the first, XML is just a data format for Ant -- it's not
supposed to be core to Ant -- in fact, the first 2 versions of Ant which
predated release to Apache ran on properties. To the second -- if there are
ideas that people want to leverage in other ways, great -- but I really
don't want to see Ant morph into the be-all/end-all. The pursuit of this
kind of thing is what Stefano and others have called at various times the
"Flexibility Syndrome" -- too much flexibility will *kill* your codebase,
even if it is "cool".

Yes, it's clear that somethings are needed. Scripting for example. Allowing
a task to execute scripting is important -- and that's why AntEater as it
stands has a simple clear object model that should be easily reflected into
scripts and modified by them. Yet, there's no special support for scripts in
the core. That's the way it should be.

> Until then I have no problem with including these tasks (and bloating
> Ant if you want to call it that) .

Contrib. Provide build files to build them for people that want them.

-- 
James Duncan Davidson                                        duncan@x180.net
                                                                  !try; do()


Mime
View raw message