On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Stephane Bailliez wrote: > > yeah, ant-dev has #3 traffic count on the nagoya archive; it is > > institutionalised that it will be hard to move people from ant1 to ant2. > > I don't think that the traffic in the dev list can be used this way...I > think that someone in commons or general did a deeper analysis between # > messages and unique senders and committers indicating projects with a very > high development activity and few users.
Well, every java project I know and all java books I've read recently are using ant for building. ( not to talk about ant-specific books that begin to show ). That's only for building - there are quite a few testing frameworks based on ant ( including watchdog and tomcat tests, cactus, anteater,etc). Tomcat4.1 and 5 will use ant to compile the java files - so you can indirectly count all its users as ant users :-). I doubt there are too many java APIs or XML dtds that are more widely used than ant's. I would bet there are more people who know/use the current ant build.xml than xsl or web.xml files. Plus IDEs, etc. I don't think it'll be as hard as the HTML -> XHTML transition, or IP4->IP6, or even JDK1.1->JDK1.2, but it'll be painfull for a lot of projects/people. Of course, that's just my guesstimate - and as I said, I'm usually wrong. > "on s'en fout" or "nous nous en foutons" first one being more appropriate in > this case. It would be a good idea to have all flame-wars in French. That would keep them shorter :-) > > We had always said that Ant 2.0 would be Java1.2, even 12+ months ago when > > it was specced. Maybe it is time to move the Ant to Java1.2, even if that > > means we have to call it version 2. We still need to be able to build *for* > > 1.1 (and should test for that), even though we dont build *on* 1.1. > > Yes I think that's the main point. I don't see any reason ( given today's JDK situation ) to consider droping JDK1.1 support unacceptable for ant1.6. It may have been 1 year ago, when most open source VMs and many OSes didn't have any 1.2 support. As all project requirements - this is something that can be decided by vote, and so far I haven't seen anyone who consider 1.1 support essential ( especially since everyone seems to agree that ant2 will not support 1.1 ). I'm -0 on the change - if anyone feels strongly enough that ant1.6 should raise the VM bar he'll have to put it to a vote and we'll go with the result. If it's negative, I'll try to port the compat package that would simplify a bit the support of 1.1 ( it's just an abstract class with 2 implementations, one for 1.1 and one for 1.2 - and all 1.2 methods not in 1.1 are called using it as a wrapper). Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
