On Fri, 28 Dec 2001 10:53, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
> I think there are two separate problems here:
>
> 1) I do not think that we can ask ANT to support every
> tool ever created in the face of the earth that deals
> with a manufacturer specific part of some generic
> process. Some examples of it are: Java compilers, EJB
> deployment, Source control systems, etc. It is
> becomming more and more a nightmare as each product
> has its own life cycle and ANT needs to keep things
> backwards compatible (even when the products do not).
> It would be much more simple to maintain if each one
> of the tools maintainied its own tools ans ship the
> correct version with the correct version of the
> product.
No shit! :)
> 2) In order for this to work ANT has to provide a
> generic API and a way to dynamically call their
> plug-ins from within our generic tasks: <javac>,
> <ejb-jar>, etc. We need a way to define a generic way
> to specify which specific plug-in to use (either by
> magic property, or somehing else) and a way to
> indicate that certain <elements> of the generic task
> must be delegated to the specific implementation
> supplied with the product. Today, the only thing we
> have is <task> which is too coarse. We need a finer
> granularity.
>
> Any ideas on how to acheive this?
yep. Basically the generic facade infrastructure I have been harping on
about. I vaguely recall that it was originally proposed last year (2000)
sometime but never really had anyone jump on it. This was one of the reasons
I have been talking about making Ant2 type based rather than task based. The
facade would just be another type that could be loaded and configured as
appropriate.
I think someone recently volunteered to have a look at this.
--
Cheers,
Pete
When a stupid man is doing something he's ashamed of, he always
declares that it is his duty.
George Bernard Shaw
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
