> > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tim Dawson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 9:09 AM > > Subject: Ant 1.5... loading tasks from jars? > > > I made the suggestion back in May to allow loading tasks > from jars (a > > > tasklib, if you will), and I know it is currently listed > in the 2.0 > > > requested features, but it appears to be possible today... > > > > > > <taskdef resource="meta-inf/ant.tdf"> > > > <classpath> > > > <pathelement location="mylib/mytasks.jar"/> > > > </classpath> > > > </taskdef> > > > > > > Of course, this is a completely non-obvious solution, > which is why its > > > > still > > > > > a requested feature. :-) > >
-- Steve Louhran wrote: > > sounds like a documentation bug to me; nobody has updated > the developing > > for ant page for a while. > -- Peter Donald wrote: > Probably good that it is not documented ;) It is an ugly hack IMHO I never said it wasn't. :-) -- Steve Loughran wrote: > > I think one of the goals (at least as I envisaged it) was to > > be able to drop > > jars into the ant lib directory and have their tasks > > registered. The taskdef > > task should also be able to pull in new jars and determine > > what tasks they > > contain. agreed -- actually I had commented on that in the note that started this thread... the biggie here is determining what your definition file is going to be called and what its going to look like. once you have that, pulling in new jars from the ant lib directory is actually quite straightforward. > > Maybe we could code up some very simple xml DTD for > deploying ant1.x tasks, > > which includes a version identifier so future ant versions > can recognise > > the version of the descriptor and react accordingly. > > > > <antdefs version="1.5"> > > <taskdefs> > > <taskdef name="..." class="..."/> > > </taskdefs> > > <typedefs/> > > I would prefer something like > > <antlib version="..."> > <task name="..." class="..."/> > > <datatype name="..." class="..."/> > </antlib> I'd agree on the latter. > "taskdef" is a task and has oodles of other cruft that should not be > specified in descriptor. And I don't see any need to group > the task type > because in the future we will have oodles of types, most of which are > dynamically registerable. ATM we can only have tasks, datatypes (and > conditions?) but in Ant2 this will definetly not be the case. > > > Does this seem like a good idea? > > If you can get agreement. Considering the loons that came out > last time such > issues were raised I guess I am sceptical ;) It appears that any change is going to be controversial in this group... :-) But that doesn't mean its not worth doing. This feels like such an incremental (though very useful) change that I think its worth the vote. The activity on this thread, despite the initial "not until Ant2" response, would seem to support that. I'll summarize this thread with a proposal that can be voted up or down. Hopefully any "nay" vote will come with a Really Good Reason. Thanks, Tim
