On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > These are minor issues. > > We're talking bout the project/task/target/datatype architecture, not of > > > how it's implemented. > > Well, how it's used is more important than either architecture or > implementation to the end users. > > The current 'paradigm' of ant to an end user is not clear. To recap on one > of my points to Conor, a 'project' in the context of a build process makes > no sense to the first time user, as there is little or no 'project' > information in the build file. Call it 'Compiler' and people will think, > initially, that it's going to do compilation. A name is very important to > adoption.
Not sure I understand what you want. Changing the <project> element name in build.xml to use a different name you feel is more apropriate ? Are you kidding ? A number of people ( usually those who -1 the adding of scripting elements) believe ant should be more 'descriptive', and not procedural. That's why it's called <project> - it is intended to describe the project, including how to build various components. Most people only 'describe' how to build and test it, and do that in a procedural way. That's where the need for <if>, <while>, etc comes from, and that's why ant files become ugly and hard to understand. However many ant asks are pretty high level, and nothing prevent adding more 'descriptive' and higher level information ( using data types). Whatever is in the gump descriptor could very well be in an ant file. Of course, the biggest focus is on describing how to build various targets - that's what people need the most. I agree we should add more 'descriptive'/higher level data types under <project>, maybe what gump uses. > > Antlib will make it more granular, what's the problem? > The problem is these ideas have been around a long time. It seems a > gradual process of adding them in is happening, rather than a concerted > look at what the proposals have to offer. I think someone first broached > the ant lib concept almost 18 months ago...and an implementation's been in > Mutant and Myrmidon for how long....? And what's wrong with a gradual process ? Especially for important things I think we should take all the time it is needed. If something is obvious and all commiters are +1, it'll probably get added fast. If there are doubts - then we should spend more time finding a better solution. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
