ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From roger day <>
Subject Re: Ant: pros and cons!
Date Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:41:41 GMT
What's stopping you using the java classes? You could even use it from
Jython. Isn't that non-XML enough for you? If you really want to go
the non-XML route, you could always use Scons.

Anything else would be YASL - and, personally, I think that's a waste
of time and energy. Stick to the XML - it may not be pure but it's
what made Ant the success it is today.


On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:37:41 -0500, Dominique Devienne
<> wrote:
> > From: Nicolas Mailhot []
> > On mar, 2004-07-20 at 09:56 +0200, Johan Vromans CPWR wrote:
> > > The current situation is that we have the worst of all: it's not a
> > > programming language, it's not a scripting language, it's not even
> > > XML anymore.
> >
> > The way dependency lists are put inside a text array in an attribute
> > never was XML-ish (better use several depend children). Or the use of
> > flat-text property files (though pure XML is gaining ground).
> >
> > Anyway, a lot of the shortfalls of ant syntax disappear when you couple
> > it to some xslt processing, but then you get bitten by the parts that
> > look like XML but aren't really (which can be workarounded without too
> > much effort, but is a PITA nevertheless).
> If some of you guys out there are hung on the XML syntax (which I personally
> don't have a problem with), nothing ever prevents you from introducing a new
> ProjectHelper instead of the default XML-based one. As someone (Jan or
> Matt?) recently wrote on this (dev?) list, if you guys find a flaw in the
> logic that allows to implement custom ProjectHelpers, the Ant team is
> committed to fix it to make ProjectHelper useful and implement-able. This is
> different than endorsing these alternative syntaxes, but good enough, no?
> As far as the critique about Ant using non-XMLish constructs like the
> depends attribute of targets (true enough), again, nothing prevents a group
> to define a more XML-friendly 'Canonical Ant' schema with an XSL to go in
> either directions. This would also work for non-XML syntax, which could
> transform their own grammars into this canonical Ant XML. RelaxNG showed
> it's possible with the XML and compact syntax. I'll just note that the .rnc
> syntax is great for simple schemas, but that it quickly gets worse than the
> XML (IMHO) to support more RNG features. The good thing is that is has the
> two syntaxes, so that ends the debate ;-)
> In short, some people have the itch to introduce an alternate non-XML syntax
> to Ant. Are you going to do anything about it? --DD
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:


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

View raw message