Jose, Well put, thanks. Being a newbie on this list, it may be that there is a lot of implied context that I did not have when reading these two proposals.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jose Alberto Fernandez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 2:40 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: Did somebody say Shut up and Write? :) > > > > From: Joshua Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > I think the 'frantic' proposal has some good points, but the > > risk of going > > in this direction is that it may degenerate into a proposal > > to create a > > rule-based programming language. I don't think there are > > many build systems > > written in Prolog. ;-> Coming from many years of developing > > compiler-interpeter systems, I would say it would be a > > mistake to turn ANT > > into any kind of generic purpose programming / scripting > > language. ANT's > > specificity is its utility, for me. > > > > Maybe not build, but there are a few configuration systems (installers) > that hide a Prolog engine inside so that peple don't get scared :-) > > > You may want to consider adoption factors when making these proposals. > > > > The 'target' and 'task' objects in the existing ANT implementation are > > familiar to anyone who has used make. While unifying all of > > the objects is > > 'neato', it won't do anything do drive the adoption of the tool. > > > > But I do not think anyone is saying that at the user level (XML file) > any of these things will change. The discussion is how they are > treated internally during execution and that will only implact someone > making changes to CORE, not even the writers of regular Tasks should be > impacted by this. > > > Also consider this: > > Installing / deploying is typically a separate process with different > > requirements done by different people. It's very tempting to > > have the build > > system deploy things as well (people try to deploy things > > with CVS all the > > time). > > > > True, but given the amount of flexibility we have put in ANT it > looks like real close to having most of the parts needed for a > installer. True, most problaby the Javac task will not be used, > and some other tasks will be required, but syntax, semantics, > may be quite simillar. We would need a better GUI though :-) > > Jose Alberto > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
