ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: Whoa Bessie... Was -- Re: [Proposal] AntFarm
Date Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:33:26 GMT
James Duncan Davidson <> wrote:

> On 12/18/00 5:28 AM, "Conor MacNeill" <> wrote:

>> How would you say the current Ant is radically different from what
>> you want it to be?
> Its more complicated in syntax..

How so? Because we've added nested elements instead of comma separated
lists in attributes?

> Its less flexible in picking up tasks..

Quite the opposite, taskdef can load tasks from a different classpath
now, while the user was forced to include everything in the system
CLASSPATH in Ant 1.1 and earlier.

And then nobody disagrees on making that system better, I think you
can go back to June or July to see the first proposals on how to make
that better. The main reasons why it is not there yet is (1) there has
been a huge demand for a 1.2 release as it fixed tons of bugs (not
all leftovers from the former presidency) and we didn't want to put
the new features in without bigger tests and (2) development has more
or less stalled here when you announced your Revolution.

> And it doesn't lend itself to integration well.

Which has been addressed as well, especially with Sim's "Proposed API
refactoring" thread that predates AntEater as well.

> And it's a pain in the arse to deal with all those scripts which
> were intended to go away.

Granted, add that to the spec document. AFAIK three of the four
proposals work more or less without scripts.

>> So who gets to define what is Ant? Is that you?
> Bluntly, yes.

Sorry, but I disagree. You have as much power as any other
committer. I'm not saying you should go away, quite the opposite, but
I don't see room for a "primus inter pares" either.

And if you want to enforce it

> With the help of a lot of people.

I'm afraid that won't be the same people that would be here to help


View raw message