On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 06:54 , Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
We are all looking at them for inspiration to make Ant1 better and waiting for them to ask a vote for the codebase switch.
I'm happy to ask for a vote. I tried once already :-) The problem is that nobody knows what the vote really means.
So far, it's mainly been "Who needs the proposals? Ant 1 can do anything!".
Who needs the proposal implementations? We can put that stuff in the Ant1 codebase.
Really? I am interested to see that. :-)
Ant1 is bit of a mess, really. I tried to give some pointer to this in my Mutant doco.
For example, You have suggested <import> for an include function (BTW why not use <include> or <include-project>?).
In 1.6 Stefan will enable top level tasks.
But, if someone has their own <import> task, they can't use it at the top level since you will effectively introduce a new keyword to Ant. Mutant tries to solve this problem by using a namespace for this sort of metadata. I believe Myrmidon uses a task for <include> although there are issues with that approach which I'm not sure how they have addressed.
Anyway, my point is that it is probably easy to grab features from the proposals but without the underlying architecture, the result may not always be that good.
Again, my issue is that there doesn't *seem* to be a drive toward the user requirements (http://jakarta.apache.org/ant/ant2/requested-features.html ), other than luck...
Not really.
The proposals try to make the requirements real.
Ant1 codebase tries to assimilate as much as possible without snaturating.
Let me give an analogy. You live in the leaning tower of Pisa and you see your neighbours are adding rooftop pools to their building. They look pretty cool but putting one on your roof may leave you a little wet :-)
Conor
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
