I think the concept behind Ant should be changed to be a "Task Execution Engine", and the concept of Project and Target can be generalized into a specific form of a Task.
Project would end up being a class that simply implements the Task interface. In a similar perspective, Install would also be a class that implements Task. If you want a general tool, then this is a must. jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rosen, Alex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 10:49 AM Subject: RE: AntEater > > >While this can be a powerful paradigm, it can also dillute the > > effectiveness of > > >Ant's original goal, "Ant is a Java based build tool.". > > > > Nope - the users don't care what the backend is - it could be > > written in > > perl or c and it wouldn't effect the users besides the few > > who write tasks. > > I agree that there could be confusion, but as long as you use names well, it's > OK. Saying "Ant 2.0 is a flexible general-purpose blah blah, and by the way it > can also do builds" will be very confusing. Much better is to say "Myrmidon is > a flexible general-purpose blah blah. Ant 2.0 is a Java-based build tool, which > by the way uses Myrmidon as its back-end." > > Alex
