> -----Original Message----- > From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2002 7:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: What is going on in ANT1.x > > > On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Adam Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This is the magic of UnknownElement, which extends Task, but can > > turn itself into a data type. > > <very good description snipped /> > > > There's some very brittle stuff in there. > > It is, most of it is mine and I'm not proud of it ... > > > We would do far worse than to refactor the project building code, > > and take the compatibility hit. > > I'm not sure whether I'm parsing this correctly. > > Are you proposing to refactor the project building code (which would > be fine) without care for backwards compatibility (which would get my > -1 if you want to do it in Ant 1.x)? >
No, not without care for backwards compatibility. But not strictly 100% backwards compatible either. I think it would be worthwhile for us to reclaim some of the internals of Ant, and move them behind a better specified API (that is, better specified as to which bits are the API and which bits are the internals). I'm not talking about an Ant2-style rewrite of the project building code, just a better separation between API and internals (followed, of course, by some serious refactoring of the internals). Problem is, it really isn't do-able without breaking compatibility somewhere. The question is, do we care about this for tasks that are using public code that they really shouldn't? This is the 'compatibility hit' I was talking about - breaking some tasks, to give us more room to move. Adam -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
