ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott Sauyet <>
Subject Alternatives to Ant's XML Syntax
Date Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:51:22 GMT
(If this belongs on the dev list instead, please let me know.)

Are there any tools which accept an alternate form of syntax for Ant 
build files?

While I love XML as an interoperable data and document format, it seems 
rather heavy for build scripts, which in my environment need continual 
tweaking.  I think that a simpler text format might make life a bit 
easier.  I'm thinking of something like this:

         name: compile
         depends: init
         description: Compiles all the source files into the build 
             srcdir: ${java.src.dir}
             destdir: ${build.dir}
             debug: true
             nowarn: true
                 refid: test.classpath
             todir: ${build.dir}
             fileset dir: ${java.src.dir}
                     name: **/*.java
                     name: **/*.html"

(If lines wrapped, it was unintentional.)

This could be a replacement for the following:

     <target name="compile"
             description="Compiles all the source files into the build 
         <javac srcdir="${java.src.dir}" destdir="${build.dir}" 
debug="true" nowarn="true">
             <classpath refid="test.classpath"/>
         <copy todir="${build.dir}">
             <fileset dir="${java.src.dir}">
                 <exclude name="**/*.java"/>
                 <exclude name="**/*.html"/>

I converted one of my moderate-sized build files to this format.  The 
original is at (view 
source if necessary) and the altered version is at .  This increases the 
number of lines in the file significantly (by about 50% in my test) but 
does not much change the overall size of the file (decrease of about 5% 
when using tabs, increase of about 7% when using four-space indents.) 
For me, it makes it substantially easier to read.

It would be easy to generate SAX events when parsing this file, so I 
imagine it would be easy to connect it to Ant. But I know nothing of the 
internals of Ant; I might be missing something basic.

There seems to be one slight ambiguity in the syntax I've used, and I 
don't know if that would justify introducing additional punctuation to 
the system:

     <element id="x">contents</element>


     <element id="x">

would both map to

         id: x

We could disambiguate this by requiring the former one to be written

         id: x
         : contents

But I don't really know if that is important.  Note that this would not 
work as a general XML replacement, because mixed content wouldn't work, 
but I don't think there are any cases at least in the ant core which 
used mixed content.

My question, then, is has this been done?  Would it be reasonable to do 
so?  I know I could easily write my own parser to run ahead of Ant 
generating the build script from this format, but it would be much nicer 
to pass a flag into Ant to signify that I'm using plain-text format #7, 
or whatever.

Any thoughts?

   -- Scott

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

View raw message