Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 91535 invoked by uid 500); 8 Oct 2001 09:06:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 91489 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2001 09:06:22 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" From: Peter Donald To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Subject: Re: Ant 1.5... loading tasks from jars? Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 18:54:42 +1000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1] References: <004e01c14fb3$41dbaae0$0da0f40f@nordwand> In-Reply-To: <004e01c14fb3$41dbaae0$0da0f40f@nordwand> X-Wisdom-Cookie: . MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <20011008090426.BDXH13193.mss.rdc2.nsw.optushome.com.au@there> X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Mon, 8 Oct 2001 14:39, Steve Loughran wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim Dawson" > To: > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 9:09 AM > Subject: Ant 1.5... loading tasks from jars? > > > I made the suggestion back in May to allow loading tasks from jars (a > > tasklib, if you will), and I know it is currently listed in the 2.0 > > requested features, but it appears to be possible today... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, this is a completely non-obvious solution, which is why its > > still > > > a requested feature. :-) > > sounds like a documentation bug to me; nobody has updated the developing > for ant page for a while. Probably good that it is not documented ;) It is an ugly hack IMHO > Maybe we could code up some very simple xml DTD for deploying ant1.x tasks, > which includes a version identifier so future ant versions can recognise > the version of the descriptor and react accordingly. > > > > > > I would prefer something like "taskdef" is a task and has oodles of other cruft that should not be specified in descriptor. And I don't see any need to group the task type because in the future we will have oodles of types, most of which are dynamically registerable. ATM we can only have tasks, datatypes (and conditions?) but in Ant2 this will definetly not be the case. > Does this seem like a good idea? If you can get agreement. Considering the loons that came out last time such issues were raised I guess I am sceptical ;) -- Cheers, Pete -------------------------------------------------- Logic: The art of being wrong with confidence... --------------------------------------------------