Return-Path: <kwood@i2.com>
Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Received: (qmail 55202 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2000 17:11:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO odo.i2.com) (64.26.226.21)
  by locus.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Dec 2000 17:11:54 -0000
Received: from i2.com ([10.21.69.25])
	by odo.i2.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA02147
	for <ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:10:09 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <3A3E453E.14137AC6@i2.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:11:26 -0600
From: Ken Wood <kwood@i2.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: AW: Whoa Bessie... Was -- Re: [Proposal] AntFarm
References: <NDBBLHDMNMJEDAOBHNIGOEJMCDAA.Christoph.Wilhelms@t-online.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

How about the good old fashioned way:

1. A requirements specification that spells
   out WHAT the software must do, without
   ANY indication of how it should be done.

2. A design document that specifies HOW the
   requirements will be met via a proposed
   implementation.

I suspect the reason we have so many proposals
in the form of code is that code is fun to write.
Specifications and design documents are NOT fun
to write. But, they are a better way communicate
a software effort than trying to compare multiple
proposals in the form of different codebases.

Christoph Wilhelms wrote:
> 
> Sorry, but I have to give a short statement from the view of an Ant user and
> "extender"!
> 
> I think it is very simple what we all want and what we dont want. Please
> correct me if I am wrong!
> 
> We want:
> 
> * Just ONE Ant!
> * A reliable running, fast, innovative Ant (just like Ant 1.2 is now)
> * An Ant beeing supported, discussed and improved (just like it has been up
> to now)
> * Many Ant-Developers that work TOGETHER (on the current and future
> versions)
> * A clear line! We want to see in wich direction Ant is going! This is
> mandatory
>   for everyone who wants to EXTEND core ant like ANTIDOTE or VAJ-Integration
> or
>   JBuilder-Integration etc.
> 
> We don't want:
> 
> * Competetive Ant-Developers ( ;-) )
> * Many different Ants (Myrmidons, Antfarms, Anteaters, etc.) parallel! Don't
> misunderstand
>   me: the proposals are on one hand good for improving Ant - on the other
> hand there is
>   NOBODY who can compare the proposals with each other (lack of time). IMHO
> at the moment
>   the proposals INTERUPT Ant development-process!
>