At 04:25 26/10/00 -0400, you wrote: >Since everyone else has made some comments, I felt "what the heck", opinions >are cheap. > >(1) I feel Ant should have the "on-the-fly" flexibility scripts give. >Having to write a new task definition just to do some small bit of >functionality, above and beyond a current task is not feasible whether you >know Java or not.
I agree - to a degree. Allowing scripts into core means that script files are not longer trivial to read and build (and are also considerably slower to interpret) and in the same position as make - only experts can hack at it. Then again I really like functionality offered by scripts - so I am not sure which is best path to jump on ;) >(2) The immaturity (and it is immature) of Ant means that not every task is >complete. Some things we need to be patient about. EJBJAR is *far* from >being complete, in my opinion. I need <exec> and <script> to do things I >can't do in EJBJAR. When EJBJAR has all the features I want (and I'm trying >to add them during my oh-so large amounts of free time) then I can ditch the ><script>...because I *want* no script in there. I agree ;) (Not about ejbjar as I not use it but about ant not being fully matured yet ;]) >(3) Scripts (and exec to some extent) break the intent of Ant and XML. You >can't argue against that point very much when you think about XML. XML is >an element based file meant to uniformly describe data/information. Exec >follows this pattern, so it's excused. Script works more like HTML, where >tags simply describe how that which is in-between should be read. The long >rope of XML is being tied into a noose if you follow that path. this is what I fear Cheers, Pete *------------------------------------------------------* | "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want | | to test a man's character, give him power." | | -Abraham Lincoln | *------------------------------------------------------*
