[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/09/2002 12:48:14 PM: > On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] > > 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 ? No, I'm saying we need to look at what things are used for and name them appropriately. <project> has very little to do with project details, and more to do with <build> details. > 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. But what it does *NOW* has nothing to do with a project. Are you saying there should be one file to describe project information like the cvs repository, sub projects etc and that same file should contain all the build processes? > 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. Now you've gotta be kidding. Keep all the project info and all the build processes in one file? > 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. Nothing's wrong with a gradual process, as long as it has a well defined goal. This hasn't been the case with Ant 1 and Ant 2. I can't remember the announcement being made that the Ant 2 proposals were being subsumed into Ant 1 and all efforts should go there. In fact there's been a lot of effort recently especially in Myrmidon > If there are doubts - then we should spend more time finding a better > solution. I'd be happy if there was a clear committed path forward. It seems that some committers are interested in Ant 2, and others are keeping the status quo. But where is the common direction? > Costin -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Work: http://www.multitask.com.au Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers
