On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Peter Donald wrote: > > Leaving stuff in: > > o Gives more familiarity for users when it comes to recognising their > > converted files and adding to them o Means we don't need a single preferred > > name > > o Adds to the complexity of the code (in terms of extra methods which are > > essentially of no use) o Adds to the difficulty of reading someone else's > > build file if they're using undocumented names o Keeps existing code which > > uses varying method calls > > However far more importantly IMHO is > > o Leaving stuff in makes it harder to write build files due to inconsistencies
Or: - it makes easier to write build files due to consistency with previous versions. - it makes it possible to write build files that work with multiple versions of ant - 99% of the build.xml files should work with any version of ant starting with 1.3 ( with some bogus warnings if 1.4 is used ). Given that many people will stick with ant1.x, and will not convert their files for exaclty this reason - I think this is the important benefit here. > > It strikes me that aside from the part about choosing a single preferred > > name, > > I think we just need someone to step up and rigourously define a "standard" > approach to naming attributes/elements and then document this stanrd. From > now on we could start using it. We already sort of decided on > destFile/srcFile etc but it is not documented etc I think someone already did set up a sandard - it is the current DTD, set by all the ant commiters. It is not 'perfect' in the some views, but 1 year from now whoever will be then 'active commiter' may have different opinions about the today standard and follow the precedent and create yet-another standard based on their taste. I don't think 'taste' can be standardized, and acomodating multiple styles is more important than imposing one's taste on everyone else. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
