On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 16:40, Erik Hatcher wrote:
> The first sentence of the Ant2 goals begins like this: "Even though Ant2
> is expected to be incompatible with the current Ant1 series...". And then
> later: "Tasks written for Ant1 won't work in Ant2 as the API of Ant's core
> and the names of utility classes are going to change."
>
> So why worry about <script> breaking builds?
Because the percentage of users who write tasks is small compared to those
who use ant. <script/> is more in "user" land rather than "developer" land. I
am not sure how widely used it is (I don't use it any of my build files) so I
guess
> Anyone upgrading from 1.x to
> 2.0 will have many other issues to contend with (most likely) than
> <script>, no? And any tool that is developed to convert Ant 1.x
> build.xml files to Ant 2.0 format could warn the user when it encounters
> <script> that there are likely to be issues with that task, and there are
> likely to be other similar scenarios of a conversion.
Hopefully the conversion will be automatable for all of stuff that ant-dev
maintains. It will make "best effort" attempts at unknown tasks. So I guess
the "unknown" tasks will require warnings so I guess more warnings for
ant-dev maintained stuff is maybe OK.
> I truly understand what you are saying about exposing Task (or other
> internal objects) to script code and how internal code changes could break
> such code. But I don't agree that its a bad thing. Anyone using
> <script> should know they are playing with fire and risk incompatibilities
> in future releases.... but a 1.x release won't change Task, do you think?
> Exposing "self" to <script> is not going to open the floodgates to folks
> all of a sudden writing tasks in this manner, and wacky insane things could
> be done with <script> already.
I don't know about that. I remember that adding some features to other tasks
ended up in lots of people using them in short order (if/unless attributes of
<target/> remind me of this as does zipfileset). I know of lots of people who
have wanted to use script like functionality but never had because it is a
pain to install. Not sure if that will change though ;)
BTW Sam whats the status of BSF -> Apache move?
> I'm done lobbying for this though - its really a matter of principle to me
> as I'm not architecting build scripts that use <script>. I'm happy that
> "project" got added, and would be much happier if "self" also got added.
> Sam gave a +1. I'm not sure of the politics involved at the committer
> level, but does that constitute a vote on that change where other
> committers are asked to weigh in on it?
Well one -1 is enough to block it but consider my -1 upgraded to -0 so you
may have convinced some other committer to do it ;)
--
Cheers,
Pete
------------------------------------------------
"No. Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda
------------------------------------------------
