Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Les Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > In my case, I'm waiting on a decision on <ear> >> >> Honestly, I'm closer to removing <war> than adding <ear> - if it >> wasn't for backwards compatibility. >> > > Stefan, can you explain why you feel this way?
Before people start to explain the benefits of <war> to me, I'd better say that I really like this task and use it a lot - just look at the @author tag in War.java and you'll know ;-) Well, the reason I'd rather remove <war> is that there will be coming a whole lot of <?ar> tasks that extend <jar> in the same way. This is great and I really appreciate the additional syntax checking they'll provide and all this, but they are special purpose tasks. As such, they shouldn't be part of the set of core tasks - this is true for a whole bunch of other tasks in Ant's CVS as well. In retrospect, I regret that I didn't put War.java into the optional package. By adding more and more special purpose tasks now - read before we really have some means to deal with non-core tasks - will make it more difficult to decide which tasks should be part of the core and which should be moved into separate task libraries - at least I fear this will be the case. This is not much more than an uneasy feeling - and I'm far from forcing Pete to remove the task now that he has committed it as I could by vetoing his commit (at least temporary, until he wears me down 8-). > Maybe they should be moved to the infamous contribution area. Once it is there, yes. But I think the contribution area doesn't make too much sense before we have the task library concept ready. Stefan
