On 12/6/00 1:16 AM, "Stefan Bodewig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It was never intended that all tasks end up in Ant core.
>
> We agree on that - I'm sure that you know that, just wanted to clarify
> that once again.
>
> My point was that currently you don't have too many choices if you
> want to distribute a task that is useful for many people.
Yep yep. No argument there.. I was just painting a bit of history for folks
that might not have context. Intent of course does not match reality. :)
>>> Not sure whether POET would care about their developers that want
>>> to use Ant for example - but if one of them steps up and offers an
>>> open source solution to his fellow developers I won't be the one to
>>> reject him.
>>
>> It's not core though. It shouldn't be.
>
> What is "not core" in Ant 1.2, in Ant 1.3? Everything that's in
> ...taskdefs/optional, everything that is not in src/main or everything
> that is not in Ant's repository.
>
> If the answer should not be the first one, we'll end up in discussing
> which of the already present tasks should be core and which should be
> not. Do we really need this right now, when we know the problem will
> be solved in Ant2?
No.. I was simply stating an opinion. Frankly, I don't really care what we
do with 1.2/3 along these lines because it will be taken care of in a
different way with Ant 2.x.
>> It is great. However, there are two bad influences at work here --
>> 1) Everybody has a neat way to further extend the relatively simple
>> yet power concept of mapping the XML data files into tasks and
>
> How so? Either I haven't seen this or I don't understand it.
You might not have seen it. I'm aware of at least a few efforts that people
have made generalizing the reflection mechanism. Such generalizations are
neat, but after a certain point, they are more academic than useful.
Especially when it means talking about yet another module of indirection and
dependency.
>> 2) people see this simple thing as something that can be further
>> abstracted out into something more.
>
> If we have a clear separation of Ant's core classes and the frontend,
> it should be quite easy to build several types of "something more" on
> top of Ant - but I sure wouldn't want to put all these additional
> things into Ant. Having a clear separation between Ant's business
> logic and the frontend is another thing we already have agreed upon
> for Ant2.
No argument on principles here.
.duncan
--
James Duncan Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
!try; do()
