ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicola...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Ant 2 et al.
Date Tue, 09 Jul 2002 11:44:19 GMT

Conor MacNeill wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 06:54 , Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> 
>> Who needs the proposal implementations?
>> We can put that stuff in the Ant1 codebase.
> 
> Really? I am interested to see that.  :-)
> 
> Ant1 is bit of a mess, really. I tried to give some pointer to this in 
> my Mutant doco.
> 
> For example, You have suggested <import> for an include function (BTW 
> why not use <include> or <include-project>?).

Well, more than suggested.
There is a working patch in bugzilla.
Why not include or include-project?
Dunno, there's no reason, call it smurf, it ok for me as long as it 
smurf well ;-)

> In 1.6 Stefan will enable top level tasks.
> 
> But, if someone has their own <import> task, they can't use it at the 
> top level since you will effectively introduce a new keyword to Ant. 
> Mutant tries to solve this problem by using a namespace for this sort of 
> metadata. I believe Myrmidon uses a task for <include> although there 
> are issues with that approach which I'm not sure how they have addressed.

Is mutant based on Ant or a complete rewrite?
Because in the first case, it maybe can have pieces put into Ant 
progressively... I'll look into the code again, it's a while since I did it.

> Anyway, my point is that it is probably easy to grab features from the 
> proposals but without the underlying architecture, the result may not 
> always be that good.

May.

Let's say I grab features progressively.
Say again that I reach a point when Ant1 is in 1.9, really close to the 
proposals.

At that point, switching the underlying architecture would make no harm 
to users, and it would be good.

Do you get what I mean?

>>> Again, my issue is that there doesn't *seem* to be a drive toward the 
>>> user requirements 
>>> (http://jakarta.apache.org/ant/ant2/requested-features.html ), other 
>>> than luck...
>>
>>
>> Not really.
>> The proposals try to make the requirements real.
>> Ant1 codebase tries to assimilate as much as possible without 
>> snaturating.
> 
> 
> Let me give an analogy. You live in the leaning tower of Pisa and you 
> see your neighbours are adding rooftop pools to their building. They 
> look pretty cool but putting one on your roof may leave you a little wet 
> :-)

;-P

My impression is that my building can still get features till it 
resembles the neighbours'.
But then, the neighbours can make theirs better still, while I can't.
Only then I decide to use their building, now that I'm accustomed to 
living in something like it :-)


-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


--
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