Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 73108 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2002 23:42:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Jul 2002 23:42:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 12869 invoked by uid 97); 8 Jul 2002 23:42:14 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 12839 invoked by uid 97); 8 Jul 2002 23:42:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 12824 invoked by uid 98); 8 Jul 2002 23:42:13 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4198 created Apr 24 2002) To: "Ant Developers List" Subject: Re: Ant 2 et al. MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Build V60_M13_04302002 Pre-release 2 April 30, 2002 From: dion@multitask.com.au Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 09:55:59 +1000 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on gateway/Multitask Consulting/AU(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 07/09/2002 09:56:04 AM, Serialize complete at 07/09/2002 09:56:04 AM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0080D7D24A256BF0_=" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N --=_alternative 0080D7D24A256BF0_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote on 07/08/2002 07:00:36 PM: > > I've never seen anyone who implicitly understood why some tasks were > > allowed outside targets. Or what was a datatype vs a task, nor where if="" > > was allowed. > > These are minor issues. > We're talking bout the project/task/target/datatype architecture, not of > how it's implemented. Well, how it's used is more important than either architecture or implementation to the end users. The current 'paradigm' of ant to an end user is not clear. To recap on one of my points to Conor, a 'project' in the context of a build process makes no sense to the first time user, as there is little or no 'project' information in the build file. Call it 'Compiler' and people will think, initially, that it's going to do compilation. A name is very important to adoption. > This is the point, IMO you should never give the user ability of > redefining stuff. I'm working now to make the import tag handle this by > renaming names on the fly if requested. > If you have build files that are so diverse in how they define things > you just use . > Even in Java you can have name collisions if you don't follow the > package naming conventions. And import provides a package name facility? I thought at the moment it didn't. Anyway, import is a good addition rather than a problem :) > > Also, the thrill of optional.jar and friends today leaves me cold. Ant > > could do with some serious redefinition of the task categories. > > ? > > Antlib will make it more granular, what's the problem? The problem is these ideas have been around a long time. It seems a gradual process of adding them in is happening, rather than a concerted look at what the proposals have to offer. I think someone first broached the ant lib concept almost 18 months ago...and an implementation's been in Mutant and Myrmidon for how long....? We need to revisit the requirements for Ant 2, and agree to start implementing them in Ant1 if that's the decision. But have a bogus set of requirements dangling for years stops us moving forward. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Work: http://www.multitask.com.au Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers --=_alternative 0080D7D24A256BF0_=--