ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Lenz <cml...@gmx.de>
Subject Re: ant xdocs! it ran!
Date Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:29:52 GMT
Hi all,

jumping in late...

Erik Hatcher wrote:
> On Saturday, February 15, 2003, at 08:30  AM, Steve Cohen wrote:
[snipping lots]
>> I know it isn't easy.  A is required unless B, C and D or E is 
>> specified.  Not fun.  But necessary to any automated solution.
> 
> I think we should follow the "do not repeat yourself" and "one and only 
> one representation" of validation rules as best we can in this 
> situation.  Here are a few invariants that we have to work within:
> 
> - Tasks can implement very complex and even dynamic validation rules 
> that are well out of reach of any type of codification except within 
> Java code itself.
> 
> - Its already the case that keeping the current static HTML and the 
> tasks in sync is problematic.
> 
> - The look and feel of the current documentation is not flexible.
> 
> - Tools cannot work with Ant except via introspection or by humans 
> coding things manually.
> 
> Back to the original point of do not repeat ourselves... if we try to 
> invent some way of codifying such validation rules in @tags we'll end up 
> with the same out of sync issue.  I'd rather us err on the side of just 
> using the English language (or perhaps localize it all somehow) to 
> define these loose things.  This duplicates the validation rules a 
> little too, still, because they'll be in Java code and also in a text 
> description.  These two will be in very close proximity though.

With the disadvantage that the validation rules then can't be figured 
out by tools, which would be nice.

[snipping lots more]

-- 
Christopher Lenz
/=/ cmlenz at gmx.de


Mime
View raw message