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: Anteater... I'm Baaaack...
Date Mon, 18 Dec 2000 05:42:15 GMT
On 12/15/00 6:22 AM, "James Cook" <jimcook@iname.com> wrote:

> Can you give me an example of what you are referring to? Even without knowing
> explicitly, I would think that the use of a base class would eliminate much of
> the "cruft" (great word!). BTW, the JDOM group estimates that 20% of the DOM
> is cruft.

When used the way that the JDOM folks see working with XML data, yep, it's
cruft. When used the way that DOM was designed for (browsers, editors,
x-language), it's not. It's a matter of perspective.

> I think this is a prime reason why the "core" should only be a set of
> interfaces. At some point it may be clear that a "Project" and a "Target" are
> nothing more than specialized "Tasks".

That's going down the road of excessive generalization. Projects that do
that take a *long* time to ship.

> Are you talking about myrmidon and Anteater? I don't see it in Anteater, but
> perhaps you have access to code that isn;t checked in. Anteater is very sparse
> right now, but I'm sure JDD has a bunch of code that hasn;t been checked in to
> CVS. A cursory look at myrmidon does not make it clear how changes to a Task
> can be written to a build script.

Not that much code remains to be checked in. What's there is sparse because
it's working on some very important points. The part that's well understood
isn't there because it would be a pain to change the parts that are if it
were.

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


Mime
View raw message