ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steve Loughran" <>
Subject Re: Ant for J#?
Date Sat, 05 Jan 2002 18:37:07 GMT
Thinking about it, extending javac wont work. javac assumes that your tool
maps from .java to .class in a package heirarchy; and the .net tools build
an assembly (exe or dll) without any intermediate steps (which actually
makes incremental builds harder).

A <jsharp> task could have similar-ish attributes to <javac> adding the
<csharp> options too, but would have a completely different implementation
from either.

As it is, this stuff is moot for now. The current j# add on for .net is only
for .NET beta 2, anyone who can is using .NET RC1 that went out at the MS
PDC. When .NET ships -by the end of '01 they said, but this month is
liklier, then you can still expect a 2-3 month lag for J#. It isnt a core
language of the .net story after all, more of a migration path for anyone
unlucky enough to have used J++ or who wants to have core algorithms work on
both platforms.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Cohen" <>
To: "Ant Users List" <>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 05:52
Subject: RE: Ant for J#?

I'm with you.  Approach 4.

To me Approach 1 is a non-starter.  There is no reason to compromise
either the efficiency or the reliability of the javac task to support
this abortion.  The maintainers of the original javac task should not
have to take on responsibility for maintaining it and the bugs that may
arise from the attempt to merge J# support with it.

On the other hand, though, ant is open source and if someone really
wants support for this, they can refer to the existing javac task and
write their own Optional Task copy of it that supports J#.  But they
should not expect the maintainers of the project to maintain this for
them, especially when the whole purpose of J#, as far as I can see, is
to wean developers away from java.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Fri 1/4/2002 4:10 PM
Subject: RE: Ant for J#?
(Isn't it C#?)

How about #4 - avoid J#(C#) and stick to Java to avoid lessening of
Java development momentum?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: joe []
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 4:07 PM
> To: ant-user
> Cc: joe; joebar; cmaeda
> Subject: Ant for J#?
> Is anyone out there using Ant to compile java with Microsoft's J#?
> I can see three possible approaches:
> 1. Extend the javac task to understand jc.exe (the J# compiler)
> 2. Use an existing compiler type recognized by javac, e.g. jvc,
>     and then write a cover script to transform arguments into a
>     form expected by jc.exe
> 3. Give up and just use the exec task instead of javac
> I'd really like to avoid choice 3.
> I'm expecting to do choice 2.
> But I'd love to have choice 1 possible, either because
> someone has already done the work, or because it's
> not that hard to do and I can just do it myself.
> Comments? Help? Please?
> Thanks,
> - Joe
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <>

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:


> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <>

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message