----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Stirling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ant Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 17:37 Subject: Ant Perversions [was RE: Properties are causing problem in 1.5]
> I've intentionally sensationalized the subject. Don't be offended. too late :) > Why use Ant for things like telnet, VSS, .NET, looping scripts, etc.? I'm > all for Ant as a build tool and tool for general development-related Java > stuff like deploying apps or running command line, non-interactive, Java > tools. But Ant's lousy for working with interactive programs, controlling > GUIs, and anything requiring complex flow control logic. People in denial > of this fundamental truth will do anything to compensate for Ant's > limitations. I dont loop. But I use <telnet> for remote deployment, shortly before I run my httpunit tests. But all I telnet is the command to invoke the ant file I have have just uploaded, a build file to deploy on the target app server a properties file tells me is on that system. So it aint that complex at all; though a better remote ant api would be nice, even though ops would through a wobbly at the idea. > NOTE: I did ask on the sed-users for a Java version of sed and got no > reply -- an interesting idea for a Java open source opportunity, IMO). for all its ugliness, sed has a place. > > Some people want Ant to do everything (or want to do everything from within > Ant), in hopes of achieving portability perfection in a cross-platform > world, even at the expense of horrible hacks in custom tasks, or tying the > build to OS-specific tools through <apply/> or <exec/>. what if you are execing or applying a perl script or a gnu command? You arent totally tied down there. > Is the sense of where to draw the line and admit Ant's limitations a matter > of taste? Experience? Laziness? Or what? Maybe we just like the idea of doing everything in java? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
