Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Errors-To: <duncan@x180.net>
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.2509
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:24:00 -0800
Subject: Re: Anteater...  I'm Baaaack...
From: James Duncan Davidson <duncan@x180.net>
To: <ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Message-ID: <B662DF6F.CC8B%duncan@x180.net>
In-Reply-To: <INEPIJABNNOAONEOKGBFKEFPCFAA.jimcook@iname.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

On 12/14/00 5:15 PM, "James Cook" <jimcook@iname.com> wrote:

> I see round-tripping as a major impetus behind an Ant 2.0. I guess I have=
 to
> see a list of the shortcomings in Ant 1.2! I haven't experienced too many
> from a user's perspective.

Not necessarily round tripping from the perspective of a byte-byte pov, but
yes, the ability to modify and potentially save out the tree is of prime
importance to allow both scripts to work the right way and for GUI
interaction.

> 1. Ant build scripts should be parsed from a variety of valid input sourc=
es
> into a DOM structure to facilitate Ant integration into GUI editing
> environments. (let the flames begin) :-)

Hrm. It's possible that a ProjectBuilder could work from a multitude of
sources. However, DOM I don't agree with. Even JDOM I don=B9t agree with. Thi=
s
stuff can be strongly typed. And if we move it to Collection oriented, it
gets even easier to build a GUI on it.. Granted, that GUI won't be able to
be used to reflect other XML structures, but that's ok by me.

No, I don't hate DOM -- I even was a member of the DOM working group for a
while. For it's purpose it works well. This isn't in its problem domain.

--=20
James Duncan Davidson                                        duncan@x180.ne=
t
                                                                  !try; do(=
)