At 03:33 16/5/01 +0100, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: >It took me a while to answer :-)
;) >I think this is wrong. Are you saying that everytime a new model is added we >need to have a new version or flavor of these tasks? That makes extremely >little sense to me. >Remember, <ant*> are tasks just like any other. What if tomorrow someone >adds some new taks with simillar requirements (i.e., being able to find the >buildfile, or content)? Are we going to ask the developer to support N >flavors of it? I am saying we will have to unless we developer a Builder/Loader abstraction .... and considering Conor -1ed it we can not officially build a loader abstraction so I guess we will have to write N different ant tasks ;) >What kind of sharing do you want them to have? Are you suggesting that >multiple developers build over the same file space? I doubt the compilers >will like or appreciate the result of two people building at the same time >the same file. I actually do it all the time with developers essentially redefining their own dist.dir and build.dir. >And remember, tool generated buildfiles do not need to be located on the >same place as the sources, you can locate them somewhere else and just set >the basedir appropriately. > >And finally, everything that the ANT engine is able to understand must have >to be expressable using an ANT file. I am 100% against having some other >dialect or representation not expressable as one or more ANT files. We need >a common language or we will finish like NMake and make gmake and qmake and >tmake and zmake and wmake etc, etc. Perhaps but we don't have enough examples yet to decide which is the right way so ... Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-----------------------------------------------------*
