ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marc Portier" <>
Subject wild remark on ant2
Date Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:13:37 GMT

[disclaimer: I am new to ant, nevertherless this could make sense, you never
know, thx for reading this far :-)]

I _have_ been looking into some of the ant source code and must say I was
quite impressed and intelectually challenged by the pattern behind the
extensibility of the build.xml and how it maps to set/add/create methods in
the corresponding Task object...

The,, ...
pritty nifty...

What strikes me though is that the problem is bigger then ant.
- What I see the build.xml file doing (eagle view) is holding all the
information that needs to be hung into some objectmodel in a way that both
the xml and the corresponding objectmodel can be extended (provided one
sticks to some naming and structure conventions)
- What I see returning in a lot of Java programs is a way for people to
drive those classes with configuration stuff coming from used to be property
files, but now more and more xml files...

in other words I see some resemblance between
- the build.xml as it is
- property files and how they drive runtime behaviour
- wanting some writeable 'persistency' format for 'objects' in general

(and I must admit in my 'resemblance' I'm hoping for an easy way for
everyones props files to have the features that are inside the build.xml for
defining/resolving properties, expressing/managing the filesets, the
structure-expressiveness of the xml,...)

I think my main question boils down to: is this separation towards generic
XML property/config/script reading/translation into Java classes I'm
referening to something that is/could be considered in the Ant2 design?

Even more concrete...
How wicked would it be to think that inside the ant2 project a subproject
could live that solves the problem in a way that it doesn't only cover
_this_ objectmodel of targets & tasks?

Or put yet another way... suppose such thing would exist/was build in some
other apache group... would ant still stick to it's own?

thx for thinking allong,

View raw message