----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Vernum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'ANT-dev'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 2:52 PM Subject: RE: [Proposal] Sandbox for Wayward Ant Tasks
> (the mail actually comes from the commons list, but Peter's > comment seems the most appropriate one to reply to) > > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > At 03:14 2/5/01 -0700, Scott Sanders wrote: > > >I will try and initiate that over on Ant-dev. My intention was to > > >finish the functionality to enable the xpath task to make it > > into the > > >distribution, so an ant-sandox is appropriate. > > > > But remember that the main reason they are not in the ant project is > > because the committers do not want them there and they think > > it would be a > > nightmare to support and pain for our users (especially in transition > > between 1.x and 2.0). So realize that there may be a reason for it not > > being done despite everyone thinking it would be a good idea > > for ant2 ;) > > However, it is quite common for the ant commiter to respond to a request > with > "It is possible to write a task to do that, but it won't be part > of ant" > > An AntOn/AntCallOn/Foreach task is a common example, and there are others. > > In the past month I think I have written 3 tasks, none of which I expect > (or necessarily want) to see form part of the core/optional tasks, but > which clearly support a defined use case from an ant user. > > I think it is quite reasonable to tell users, "We don't like that idea, > but could implement a task for it yourself", but when there is no clear > place to share those tasks, it's a bit hard. > > In the last 3 days, I've replied to at least 4 people's requests, saying > "I wrote such a task - search through ant-dev". I don't think that's > really a good situation. > > I have tasks that probably shouldn't be part of the support ant environment, > but which other people want to use. > Should I take these to sourceforge? > Is that really the solution that people want? > > The commiters probably see less need for an "ant-contrib" module, since they > can commit any task they think is useful, but it should be clear to all, that > there are useful tasks that are not being accepted as part of ant. > > Even if these tasks don't fit the direct goals of ant, that doesn't mean they > should be lost. > > Other than the adminstration difficulties of managing a new cvs module, what > is the complaint against having a set of contrib tasks? It certainly seems > better than the alternative. > Just to tell you I completely agree with all your comments. +1 Vincent.
