Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7FFE891E7 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:30:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 397 invoked by uid 500); 13 Feb 2012 21:30:56 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 330 invoked by uid 500); 13 Feb 2012 21:30:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 322 invoked by uid 99); 13 Feb 2012 21:30:54 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:30:54 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of mansour.alakeel@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.45 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.215.45] (HELO mail-lpp01m010-f45.google.com) (209.85.215.45) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:30:50 +0000 Received: by lahi5 with SMTP id i5so4779941lah.4 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:30:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=4eMONz9jWEA31P1XA1WKjZk9vr82OPglGL17L/WQlfc=; b=qId6/fQGI+ZMEkvWHpBsqGqsnnTmrgLoXcXhzXzADHeV/j792i3/OQI+mvbhzVxyzm ojqfrI5iGjFmp162238PDAIekljvLeETwZT4DY7Lw5GoaSth6o7kR/4VCter2ZB65ThP CUAoo1Pwto1Tn0dS8QLAgilI8igMbB54l0ut0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.29.6 with SMTP id f6mr6313574lbh.69.1329168628337; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:30:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.9.34 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:30:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4F397ADF.6040506@callenish.com> References: <87obtc1l08.fsf@v35516.1blu.de> <4F39559A.80003@callenish.com> <4F397ADF.6040506@callenish.com> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:30:28 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: NIO 2.0 == Ant 2.0? was Re: Java NIO support From: Mansour Al Akeel To: Ant Developers List Cc: Jeffrey E Care Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec555566cf04eab04b8df2fce --bcaec555566cf04eab04b8df2fce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 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 wrote on 02/13/2012 >> 01:57:56 PM: >> >> > From: Mansour Al Akeel >> > To: Ant Developers List >> > Cc: Stefan Bodewig >> > 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/**crossedmy 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_ >> >> IBM WebSphere Application Server >> WAS Release Engineering >> >> >> WebSphere Mosiac >> WebSphere Brandmark >> >> >> --bcaec555566cf04eab04b8df2fce--