> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Jon Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The definition of a "core" task is a task that Ant really cannot > > live without. This would be similar to taglibs that are part of the > > core JSP specification. > > > > The definition of an "optional" task is a task that really should be > > packaged with the product it serves. > > > > However, there are cases where this is not feasible. Therefore, we > > will provide a separate CVS repository and mailing lists that serve > > as a storage and support area for tasks that cannot be bundled with > > the original products. > > And then there is a bunch of tasks that are not needed to build Ant > and that are not related to a specific product either. <rmic>, <war>, > <exec>, <native2ascii> and so on. They should go into the repository > of optional tasks as well. >
I do not think I agree with your interpretation of the definition of core vs. optional. Just to say that only things needed TO BUILD ANT are core seems to me to be a very bad definition of what the core is. So what happens if some other task that was not needed today becomes needed for building ANT in the future, do we have to move it from the optioal package to core? ANT cannot be te standard, just because and, for example, do not uses the <rename> task we cannot say that <rename> is not core. I see here a big gray area, but for example I would think that all tasks that only rely on JDK not on other JARs nor other executables, can be part of core. <rmic>, <exec> <native2ascii> are tipical examples of things I think we need to put in. <war> on the other hand, is in a more fuzzy area because although it may not realy need some other tools it only relates to some particular java extension. So in that sense to be useful you need more stuff. With respect to <exec> It is the basic task for people to be able to write their own local tasks or <targets> that connect to other tools in their own environment. If people cannot rely on having a facility like this available out of the box, ANT will loose usability. > So if we can clarify the definition of what goes into the separate > repository, that's fine with me. > I am all for it. But lets keep in mind that we do not loose the usability of the ANT core because we have some unrealistic border line on what should be core and what not. And as I say, ANT itself cannot be the standard. Jose Alberto
