ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [ANN] Collecting requirements for Ant2
Date Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:12:33 GMT
Tim Vernum <Tim.Vernum@macquarie.com.au> wrote:

> I would like to see a firm mission statment for Ant.
> (Can we add that to the wishlist?)

done.

I think this will fall out after some discussion - and I'm not sure
the committers agree on it right from the start.

I agree that "having a purely declarative programming language" is
more of a design decision than a functional requirement - but we've
mixed that to a certain degree anyway.

> "Providing commercial-quality server solutions" to me suggest that
> we have to be willing to sacrifice any academic suggestions of
> "elgance" if/when it gets in the way of providing a useful tool.

Well, at least to me commercial-quality doesn't necessarily mean we'd
have to drop elegance.

> I actually think that the existing design is incapable of solving
> some problems.

You are probably right. Do you have some concrete examples for this
type of problems - making Ant solve these problems could be a
functional requirement ...

>> 2. Prevent Ant from becoming a monstrosity of a scripting language
>> like perl
> 
> Do we really think that ant is going to go that way?

Well, at least we fear it could. Hmm, I think "paranoia" has been
missing in this thread 8-)

> "No we won't let you have an <each> task" is being overly purist.

What about "No we won't let you have an <each> task as long as we need
to make Ant's core too complex to support this"? This has been the
argument so far, but now I'm leaning towards the "Nested Task"
approach to enable task writers to write <each> tasks without
affecting the core too much.

> You may not like it, you may not think it is needed, but if other
> people do, then really, what is the issue?

As long as it doesn't affect the core of Ant, there is no issue IMHO.

Stefan

Mime
View raw message