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 21:30:28 GMT
interesting info. It looks like the idea of the redesign has been discussed
a lot in the past.
Another good point, is to have ant independent of any external libraries.
However, I am wondering if this applies to run time environment ?
For example, writing a core ant (mainly build.xml parser), as an osgi
bundle. And collection of bundles for Javac, Java, Copy,... etc. would:

1- be independent of any external libraries and relies on JRE to build.
2- allow integration with IDEs.
3- allow to compile and build the build system, without a build system (ie,
using bootstrap). or like you said "self-building".

Would this be acceptable idea ? A core bundle, and extra bundles for basic
tasks. A bundle for ivy (maybe). We can even have a bundle to install
additional bundles remotely....
And with Java7 NIO the performance will be fine.

comments ?


On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Bruce Atherton <bruce@callenish.com> wrote:

> This brings up a point to consider if a rewrite is desired. Ant has always
> avoided relying on external libraries because it is usually the first thing
> in the build chain. It can't have any dependencies itself if it is to be
> self-building. There are tasks that require external libraries to be
> compiled, yes, but they are all optional. That is why there is a bootstrap
> build before the full build. The only libraries you can rely on being there
> are the ones that ship with the JRE.
>
> This could change in Ant 2 if people wanted but I think we'd need a
> strategy for it.  For example, there was a lot of talk at one point about
> moving the package name from org.apache.tools.ant.* to org.apache.ant.*.
> Doing this would allow both Ant 1.x and Ant 2 to exist in the same program
> (like IDEs), and it would allow a bootstrap Ant 1.x to build Ant 2. Doing
> that would allow the use of libraries.
>
> I'm sure there could be other solutions as well, but I don't think anyone
> should automatically assume that non-optional libraries will be available
> until it is decided that that will happen. Assuming anything happens.
>
>
> On 2/13/2012 12:02 PM, Jeffrey E Care 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<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_ <mailto:carej@us.ibm.com>
>>
>> IBM WebSphere Application Server
>> WAS Release Engineering
>>
>>
>> WebSphere Mosiac
>> WebSphere Brandmark
>>
>>
>>

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