Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: Whoa Bessie... Was -- Re: [Proposal] AntFarm
References: <B663F7FC.CF5B%duncan@x180.net>
From: Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org>
Date: 19 Dec 2000 09:52:20 +0100
In-Reply-To: James Duncan Davidson's message of "Mon,
 18 Dec 2000 17:21:01 -0800"
Message-ID: <m3d7eoiyij.fsf@bodewig.bost.de>
Lines: 29
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

James Duncan Davidson <duncan@x180.net> wrote:

> On 12/18/00 2:49 AM, "Stefan Bodewig" <bodewig@apache.org> wrote:
>> Maybe it would have been better to get a clear vision of the
>> feature set we require from Ant 2, formalize that and then maybe
>> let different implementations compete - this is what I tried to
>> start when you announced AntEater, but then I consider myself more
>> of an Evolutionary.
> 
> Then maybe I should sit down and write the functional spec of what
> Ant2 should be. Then the code is a SMOP and it won't come down to
> evaluation of several different code bases.

There has been a start - see the "Some thoughts on Ant 1.3 and 2.0"
thread as well as "Proposed API Refactoring" and maybe others. I think
the effort of putting together a spec stopped when you announced
AntEater.

Right now (vacation, I'm coming) I don't have the time to put one
together but will be happy to contribute to it early nect year.

> The projects that use Ant have been complaining about things
> changing. It is the build tool for Jakarta projects, and those
> people have been telling me that things are chaotic.

Sorry, but they should have told ant-dev not you. I'm sure their
complaints would have been addressed.

Stefan