ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jose Alberto Fernandez" <j_a_fernan...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Ant 2 et al.
Date Tue, 09 Jul 2002 07:17:30 GMT
From: <costinm@covalent.net>

> On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
> 
> 
> A number of people ( usually those who -1 the adding of scripting 
> elements) believe ant should be more 'descriptive', and not 
> procedural. That's why it's called <project> - it is intended to
> describe the project, including how to build various components.
> 

This is an interesting point, given that ANT does not have an specific 
concept of <component/> that for example could be describe generically
or be provided a particular set of properties for configuration.
The reality is that ANT only knows how to express flat targets
with a flat space for properties (i.e., configuration) and its dependencies.

I think that for very large or complex projects it becomes not easy or
maintainable to do it this way.

> Most people only 'describe' how to build and test it, and do that
> in a procedural way. That's where the need for <if>, <while>, etc comes 
> from, and that's why ant files become ugly and hard to understand.  
> 

I agree with you that <while> is inheritely procedural (since it is based
on observing changes in the state of the while condition), but <if> and 
<for-each> are not inheritely procedural. I do not think you can consider
XSLT procedural and you have <choose> and <for-each> as well as
inmutable variables (just as in ANT).

Jose Alberto



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message