----- Original Message ----- From: "Glenn McAllister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] vote on general direction, details will be discussed later
> > >> * better scripting/notification support so the hooks are available > > >> * to send notifications at certain times. > > +0 I don't really care either way as long as implementing it doesn't > require the core to do backflips. > > > >> * separate tasks into .tsk jars somehow. (Probably via function - ie > > >> java tasks, file tasks, ejb tasks). > > -0 We are going to have to break up the tasks into *some* sort of > organizational structure, even if it only mimics the current ant.jar and > optional.jar. > > > >> * Ask for a new CVS module for Ant tasks. > > -1 *untill* we get task loading implemented. > > > >> * It should be possible to modify details of the actual build > > >> * (e.g. classpath, used compiler) without the need to change the > > >> * build specification. > > If this means "don't use magic properties to affect the build", then I say > +1. > > > >> * better subproject handling > > Conor has a point. What does this mean? If I've missed the discussion, > I'm happy to catch up if someone will point me in the right direction. > Untill then, -1. When I mentioned this I couldn't find much on the list regarding subprojects, so I brought this up. I was expecting more discussion / fleshing out of requirements before voting so I figureed something vague would do. The kind of things I was originally meaning are pretty much covered by the following items (particularly the AntFarm stuff): * make separate build files easy (ala AntFarm) and importing different projects a breeze * create the concept of workspace so that projects can be built in a DAG and thus enable projects like catalina/tomcat to have an easy build process. It also helps CJAN to a lesser degree and would partially solve the JARs in CVS thing. * support more control over the properties that are going to be passed to subprojects (modules) Hopefully it would then be a breeze to add new subprojects without having to change the master build files - just let the subproject define its own dependancies and the parent would pick it up. Peter Donald also added as clarification: >Essentially it consists of possibly the following things >* cross-buildfile dependencies >* possibly cross-buildfile property access >* sharing of "execution stack" (ie which tasks are already executed etc) >* hierarchial scoping of properties (including const, overidable etc) Maybe the general heading needs to be split down and voted on individually. I would personally +1 each of the four points, although would hang back on the property access to see how the scoping issue pans out. > > Glenn McAllister > > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
