Steve Loughran wrote:
> What I'd like to do would be to leverage the <defineset> and <libset> stuff
> of <cc> for .net defines and references -there is no point reinventing that
> stuff. But to do that, we'd have to pull the <cc> codebase in to ant's CVS
> tree. Do you think it is time? I do.
+1 on bring several of the ant-contib pieces over. I've now started
using <propertycopy> in my builds - its quite handy. And <osfamily>
makes sense to bring over without there being too many battles either,
right?
This is a bit off-topic for pulling <cc> in, but back to the .NET stuff.
Since there is already NAnt and NDoc, it seems a bit much for us in
Java-land to reinvent the wheel. If their projects are good enough for
.NET development, doesn't it make sense for us to deprecate what we have
in that area and refer to them? Ant can call their build and they could
call us when projects need to cross those boundaries.
Are there technical reasons why Ant's .NET stuff is superior or does
more than what NAnt does? I'm open to more discussion on this, and not
against Ant having .NET stuff (I see that Avalon has a C# port in the
works too).
Erik
p.s. not to start a flame war or anything, but i've come to the
realization recently that perhaps open-source development is going to be
bad (or at least give Sun tougher challenges) in the near future - C#
ports of all of Jakarta and other Java projects would make Java-to-.NET
developer migration a whole lot easier. Reply-to: me, don't clutter the
list with replies on this flame-bait :))
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
|