As a future "tool vendor" I am very interested in this thread (how should documentation of task in the future be done). I am working on a code generator which produces an initial code skellet. It works for the code and the build file, needs some more work for test code and HTML manual ...
But I don´t use Ant via GUI or introspection :-) Jan Matčrne -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet am: Dienstag, 18. Februar 2003 10:46 An: Ant Developers List Betreff: Re: ant xdocs! it ran! On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 04:29 AM, Christopher Lenz wrote: > Hi all, >> Back to the original point of do not repeat ourselves... if we try to >> invent some way of codifying such validation rules in @tags we'll end >> up with the same out of sync issue. I'd rather us err on the side of >> just using the English language (or perhaps localize it all somehow) >> to define these loose things. This duplicates the validation rules a >> little too, still, because they'll be in Java code and also in a text >> description. These two will be in very close proximity though. > > With the disadvantage that the validation rules then can't be figured > out by tools, which would be nice. One step at a time :) It would be a major change attempt how Ant works. I think we need to accept how things work currently, and use those as our base assumptions for this documentation overhaul. The tool integration is, at this point, more of a "bonus" than an expressed need. I haven't heard the Eclipse or NetBeans folks speak up here, although I know that NetBeans has submitted several documentation patches to have Ant's task documentation friendlier for their environment. I would love to hear what tool vendors have to say about this work and where their thoughts are with Ant integration. Erik --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
