ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jason Rosenberg" <ja...@squaretrade.com>
Subject Re: The RIGHT Direction for ANT (was Re: Problem using script task)
Date Wed, 10 Jan 2001 01:04:02 GMT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roger Vaughn" <rogervaughn@yahoo.com>
To: <ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: The RIGHT Direction for ANT (was Re: Problem using script task)


> > Probably the biggest flaw in your argument is to
> > have
> > lumped together Make and Ant as equivalents.  Ant
> > is clearly much easier and much more powerful and
> > much more portable than Make.  That's why Ant is
> > attractive.  It has little to do with dependency
> > tracking.
> 
> I have to defend Jerry here - this smacks too much of
> the "newer is always better" thought.  Make is better
> than Ant - in certain circumstances.  Try building C
> programs with Ant and you'll see what I mean.  I will
> agree that Ant is far, far better than Make at
> building most Java programs.
> 

Well, perhaps you are right, since I haven't tried using
Ant for C, and I haven't ever tried to use Make for
Java.  But for Java, Ant is the way.

> As for your templating approach, give XSLT a try
> instead of scripting.  It's very powerful for this
> use, and has the huge advantage of expressing your
> build files in only one language - XML.  With XSLT,
> you can define new tags for all kinds of things - even
> for generating multiple Ant targets, for standard
> property init sections, for standard target sets, etc.
> 

Can someone post some examples of Ant templatiing
done via XSLT.   From what I've seen of XSL, it
is generally cryptic and not very human readable.

Javascript, and Ant XML, are both very intuitive
and easy to read.




Mime
View raw message