ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Duncan Davidson <>
Subject Re: AntEater
Date Mon, 18 Dec 2000 05:05:16 GMT
On 12/14/00 1:09 PM, "James Cook" <> wrote:

> I also recognize that most projects like this often do not think beyond their
> intended design. I believe that you custodians of Ant have decided that it is
> time for Ant to break out of its box, and I welcome that. Ant needs to be more
> integration friendly. I would personally like to see:

Actually, I think it's time for Ant to fill its box, not break out of it. :)

> 1. a stable Project-Target-Task object hierarchy (although these should really
> be defined interfaces, not classes).

There's enough functionality that can be implemented in Project, Target, and
Task to merit them being classes. And, since it's not expected that there
will be multiple differing implementations of Project, Target, and Task
(note that the Task is a fa├žade that hides the AbstractTask implementation
behind it in AntEater) I don't think that the complexity with making these
interfaces with backing classes is worth the extra code and obscurity.

> 2. an effective design to support the reading *and* writing of these classes.

Yep... That's what AntEater shoots for.

James Duncan Davidson                              
                                                                  !try; do()

View raw message