ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mansour Al Akeel <mansour.alak...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: NIO 2.0 == Ant 2.0? was Re: Java NIO support
Date Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:55:25 GMT
good point Jeff.
I just though about the performance. I am not sure what would be the
performance for JPF compared to OSGI. But your are very correct. That's why
we discuss this on the mailing list. In all cases, these are just thoughts,
and I don't know if there's enough interest in these ideas.



On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Jeffrey E Care <carej@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Mansour Al Akeel <mansour.alakeel@gmail.com> wrote on 02/13/2012 01:57:56
> PM:
>
> > From: Mansour Al Akeel <mansour.alakeel@gmail.com>
> > To: Ant Developers List <dev@ant.apache.org>
> > Cc: Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org>
> > Date: 02/13/2012 01:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: NIO 2.0 == Ant 2.0? was Re: Java NIO support
> >
> > Bruce,
> > In fact I was thinking about the same thing. The idea of forking Ant and
> > rewrite parts of it to use Java 7 NIO, and introduce java plugin frame
> > work  http://jpf.sourceforge.net/ crossed my mind few times.
>
> Why JPF instead of OSGi or whatever extensibility mechanism is working
> it's way through the JCP for Java 8? IMO the idea of basing an Ant re-write
> on some dubiously supported clone of Eclipse's plugin mechanism from 8
> years ago isn't very appealing.
>   ____________________________________________________________________________________________
>  Jeffrey E. (Jeff) Care
> *carej@us.ibm.com* <carej@us.ibm.com>
>  IBM WebSphere Application Server
> WAS Release Engineering
>
>  [image: WebSphere Mosiac]
> [image: WebSphere Brandmark]
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message