Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact ant-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list ant-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 25467 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2000 01:33:35 -0000 Received: from clmboh1-smtp1.columbus.rr.com (65.24.0.110) by locus.apache.org with SMTP; 28 Nov 2000 01:33:35 -0000 Received: from win2000 (dhcp065-024-153-085.columbus.rr.com [65.24.153.85]) by clmboh1-smtp1.columbus.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA16132 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 20:30:12 -0500 (EST) From: "James Cook" To: Subject: RE: Target exposing Tasks? Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 20:33:29 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N I looked a little closer at the Ant source and I see that the changes I was looking for *are* already in the source. So why is the Antidote team parsing the build scripts separately? Or are they? jim -----Original Message----- From: James Cook [mailto:jimcook@iname.com] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 8:22 PM To: ant-user@jakarta.apache.org Subject: RE: Target exposing Tasks? Looking at the latest source snapshot, the antitode project seems to not care about using Ant's Project|Target|Task objects, but rather it parses a project from scratch. I would like Ant integration in my tool to be a little more dependent on Ant, and less on a bundled GUI. Perhaps this is a shortterm design workaround for the time being, but it seems that they spent a good deal of time on it. Is this the direction for Antidote? If so, what's the rationale? For my needs (and other integrators) I would propose that the Project, Target, and Task objects expose their collections in Ant. I will make the change on my local model and I can post a patch if this makes sense to the committers. It's pretty simple if a committer chooses to do this on their own. It's more of a design decision, I suppose. jim -----Original Message----- From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 9:47 AM To: ant-user@jakarta.apache.org Subject: Re: Target exposing Tasks? James Cook wrote: > Shouldn't the Target object expose its Vector of Task objects? How > are people attempting to integrate Ant into their Tools getting the > list of Task's for a given Target? Recent CVS sources do - or at least Simeon has proposed to make the change and I haven't seen any objections. It's for exactly this purpose so that Antidote (the new GUI for Ant) can get a list of tasks. Stefan