ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Benson <gudnabr...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Resource.getURL() - example
Date Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:19:11 GMT
--- Scott Stirling <scottstirling@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/28/06, Stephen McConnell <mcconnell@dpml.net>
> wrote:
> [...]
> > This difference in scope an example that
> demonstrates an area where existing
> > protocols and software are insufficient.
> 
> OK, if you say so. In my experience the statement
> "existing protocols
> and software are insufficient," is a red flag, but I
> will step aside.
> I feel like I am ignorant of what's really going on
> in your builds.
> I've worked some pretty hairy cross-repository
> builds in commercial
> systems. I've never needed to resort to custom
> protocol handlers, so I
> obviously don't know something about your situation
> that you do. Fair
> enough.
[SNIP]
> 
> I have to look into Depot. Like I said, I think I'll
> step aside and
> let the discussion open up for others to give input.

As the opener of this can of worms I welcome all
input.  My situation: it is my opinion that Ant needs
a solution here.  I am working on the assumption no
committer would -1 me on this point.  That
accomplished, it seems that the custom protocol
handler idea and the application-level pseudo-protocol
idea are the two possibilities at hand.  I still know
fairly little about the former; the latter is fairly
straightforward.  As far as I know I am the originator
of both suggestions in the context of resolving an Ant
resource from a string representation.  Given my lack
of expertise on the protocol-based approach and the
apparent "depth" of that solution, I solicited the
opinions of others.  The apparent results so far:

protocol-based approach:
-tricky to get installed smoothly and correctly
-no Ant developer knowledge, but possibly Stephen M.
is willing to guide us where we stumble?
-standard (for better or worse); therefore possibly
applicable to more situations AND preexisting
protocols may be easier to adapt to Ant.
-seen by some as "too much"? (is that a fair
paraphrase of your feelings, Scott?)

application-level approach:
-3rd-party impls still require some sort of
Ant-specific registration
-resolution is fairly straightforward
-solution only applies to whatever situations we
explicitly provide for.

My current impression is that, partially contingent on
Stephen's willingness to field questions, ;) the
protocol-based solution is preferable, or at least
worth _proving_ unsuitable.  In any event, I'd like
for us to reach a decision on this fairly soon before
this thread runs out of steam and we have to do it all
over again (voice of experience).  What are the other
committers' feelings at this point?

TIA,
Matt

> 
> Best regards,
> Scott Stirling
> Framingham, MA
> 
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@ant.apache.org
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org


Mime
View raw message