ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Ant 2 et al.
Date Mon, 08 Jul 2002 08:55:25 GMT
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, <dion@multitask.com.au> wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicolaken@apache.org> wrote on 07/08/2002
> 04:03:41 PM:

>> The proposals now are not ready IMHO for a code switch.
> Really? I'd be interested in what you'd consider ready, given your 
> experience with Ant 1.x.

At least the people working on the code bases should declare them
ready 8-).

>> I've seen many projects change codebase and really suffer it, so if
>> it's to be done, it will have to give substantial benefits.

> Which none of the codebases do from a user perspective?

Do they?

> - Default processing for various tasks, e.g. run an ant task without
> a build file, if all it wants is a simple property that can be made
> available from the command line.

Outside of Ant's scope, IMHO.  Jelly is able to do that, other tools
could/can.

> For example, take datatypes. They have no well defined lifecycle as
> tasks do, and would really be better off not existing.

Why?

> Straight java code/beans would suffice for most uses.

So use them.  Any class can be a data-type.

> 'Project' really isn't a project, it's a 'Build'.

True.

> All of my issues are solveable in Ant 1,

Agreed.

> but from what I've seen it'd be easier to solve with either Mutant
> or Myrmidon.

And agreed once again, but for reasons that are completely irrelevant
to the user.  And I doubt that any of the benefits of your personal
list would be enough to make people restructure their build system
because the build file format had changed in an incompatible way.

Stefan

--
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