ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Peterson, Lance" <>
Subject RE: Ant documentation (was: Re: javax.sql.DataSource(Thanks!!))
Date Wed, 06 Jun 2001 17:16:33 GMT
I really disagree.  I have seven years of software development (including
make tools), but I've only started developing Java and XML this year.  The
Ant user guide has answered 95% of my questions.  That's phenomenal for an
open-source, FREE development tool.  The ant scripts I've written may not be
exotic, but they're used to build J2EE projects deployed on Borland
Appserver (on Win2000) and Weblogic (on Win2000 and Solaris).

BTW, the other 5% of my questions have been answered by this mailing list
(especially the archive) or by experimentation.  There have been a couple
things for which I've had to write custom tasks (like an assert and a
wrapper for the visigenic java2iiop tool).  All of this was also FREE.

-----Original Message-----
From: Suu Quan []
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: Ant documentation (was: Re: javax.sql.DataSource(Thanks!!))

> > --- Suu Quan <> wrote:
> > > Same here (not javadoc, but other tasks). It says a lot about the
> > > quality of the documentation.
> > > If I'm still not clear: I give a Failing grade for documentation.
> >
> > I completely disagree -- but maybe I'm too familiar with it at this
> > to be objective about it. Where, specifically, do you think it fails?
> > (Keeping in mind that it's not intended to teach people Java, XML, or
> > anything other than how to use Ant.)

Should call it a reference manual (and a bad one at it), not a user manual.
Where does it fail? I know java,xml,make .... you name it, unless I missed
other prerequisites, and I can't make good use of it.
Other people already filled other details.

View raw message