ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mariusz Nowostawski <mari...@marni.otago.ac.nz>
Subject RE: [PROPOSAL] Optional Tasks
Date Mon, 11 Dec 2000 01:32:29 GMT

javac  - java compiler
           (classic, modern, jikes, others)

javacc - java compiler compiler (parser generator)
           (metamata, antlr, sablecc, others)
jidl   - idl stubs/skeletons generator
           (java2 jidl, many others in java and native)
ejbjar - enterprise beans packager (with configuration)
           (weblogic, ias, jboss, many others)

> In summary, I think there are cases where it would be nice to define a
> common "interface" for a task and allow different implementations for this
> task. I don't want to lose sight of that unified approach because the
> optional tasks are scattered over the net.

But should those "interfaces" being kept in ANT core, or should they be
kept in seperate, optional tasks repository? For javac, it should be kept
in the core, but what about others? There is not that many of them, at the
moment which needs to have unified "interface", so maybe that should be
part of the core, and then, all the optional tasks can be scattered over
the places, and there would be no need for a repository of optional tasks?
But it puts some additional work on jakarta-ant commiters. 

I prefer a central repository and "unification factory" for optional
tasks, which could take care of defining those "interfaces", and which
could keep track of all the optional tasks. The only exception would be
javac being part of the core.



Mime
View raw message