Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-user-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 6947 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2002 09:12:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Mar 2002 09:12:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 27976 invoked by uid 97); 1 Mar 2002 09:12:39 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 27956 invoked by uid 97); 1 Mar 2002 09:12:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Users List" Reply-To: "Ant Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list ant-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 27942 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2002 09:12:38 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: bodewig.bost.de: bodewig set sender to bodewig@bost.de using -f To: ant-user@jakarta.apache.org Subject: Re: Determine target's name References: <3C7BD7FF.ECB7DE3F@eblox.com> <3C7E8BCA.B793AA6D@eblox.com> From: Stefan Bodewig Date: 01 Mar 2002 10:12:27 +0100 Message-ID: Lines: 66 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Civil Service) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Drew Davidson wrote: > Well if you want to reduce the maintenance burden then rm -fr * the > whole repository. Good idea, actually this is more or less the idea behind Ant2. > The point remains, however, that this is a lame excuse. I don't think so. We are committing new features every day, as long as we are convinced that they are needed. This particular case has been brought up more than once, and it has been vetoed by at least one committer every time it has come up. To challenge this veto, you need a use case that convinces this committer (who is not me BTW). But then again, it hasn't been brought up as often as you imply it had. Take if/unless attributes on for example. I've always been against them, but finally I have been the one to actually implement it - because it came up that often. > Systems built by accretion (like ant appears to be) mostly end up > being chaotic unorganized piles of junk. True - and this is exactly the way most open source projects have evolved. At some point you realize that things went out of control and start to refactor or rewrite. Ant is at the point that some serious refactoring (some say a complete rewrite) is necessary. > This is because the basic principles and fundamentals of the code > are not well thought out. Some people say that this is one of the most important conditions for a successful open source project, great idea combined with bad code. > To which I retort: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SometimesYourGuessWasWrong I knew you would say that 8-) This is why we ask for a use case. Prove that we are guessing wrong. > Target introspection is a good thing. Why? I'm sure, I am missing something. When you write a task, you can do getOwningTarget().getName(), same for