ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From d...@multitask.com.au
Subject Re: Ant 2 et al.
Date Tue, 09 Jul 2002 08:33:58 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicolaken@apache.org> wrote on 07/09/2002 06:03:54 PM:

[snip]
> Project means that it's the build project.
> It's not a project descriptor.
> The build-project, not the project-descriptor.
The repetition doesn't make it more obvious... 'Build-Project'? I can't 
think of a single time I've heard someone say "I'm just going to update 
the 'build-project' file". Build file, yes. Ant build file, yes. Project 
file - never.

> It's all about getting understood.
> I would just call it <ant> and get along.
> Besides, it's really easy to make <ant> and <project> both work, so we 
> have new syntax and backward compatibility with really no effort.
> How's that?
Works for me, but again, this isn't my main point. My main point was to 
try to raise the Ant 2 proposals and see if there was any plan to do 
anything with them, or if they're simply spinning their metaphorical 
wheels.

So far, it's mainly been "Who needs the proposals? Ant 1 can do 
anything!".

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... 

> Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Work:      http://www.multitask.com.au
Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message