> From: Siberski, Wolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > > > From: Siberski, Wolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > [snip] > > > E.g., we could have > > > anttasks.jar all tasks needed to build ant > > > > -1, the definition cannot be "what is needed to build ANT". > Is has to be > > based on what is needed to build a reasonable application > that does not > > require some external or optional tool during the build process. > > Using ANT as an approximation is one thing, but it cannot > be the begining > > and end. In particular, what do you mean by building ANT? > just CORE or > > the whole of ANT (optionals included)? > > Just core. But why do You bother? If You want to build Ant, You'll > download anttasks.jar. If You want to build EJBs, You'll download just > ejbtasks.jar. If You want to build foos, You'll download footasks.jar. > No Ant user would be forced to use the task collection designed > for Ant developers. > I'm sure we won't be able to agree about what "is needed to build > a reasonable application...", so my goal is to avoid this > discussion by providing several (overlapping) task collections > which are targeted to different application types / Ant user types. >
I have very little to disagree with you. I think we are in the same wave length here. I am just trying to be precise on the issue of CORE. Why, because once it becomes gospel, I see perfectly general purpose tasks being forbidden from CORE because building ANT does not require them. So I am battling for a more, eventhough subjective, open standard. With respect to overlapping jars, I do not think I like that. Why because in a centralized environment you may have different users with different needs. As long as things are additive there is ussually little risk for bad clashes. But, I am all for defining collections of tasks. Jose Alberto > Wolf >
