Erik Hatcher wrote:
We don't really need to get hung up on the syntax of a descriptor at
this stage. Let's get something working in HEAD and work with it.
XDoclet can be used to generate these descriptors anyway, and it likely
be considered the best practice way to do it anyway.
I think the syntax of the descriptor is pretty important.
Obviously I disagree, but not terribly strongly.
This is where I differ. I like what I've heard so far, but I really
don't like the total looseness of Ant build files, and I don't think we
should propagate that same scheme. I understand how it evolved and
that ease of use was one of the primary factors for Ant's looseness,
not to mention that it was around before namespaces were really
solidified.
The "looseness" is pretty fundamental in ant, and at least IMO is one of the reasons it works so well.
My take is that since we are using XML for build file syntax that we should embrace all of the features of XML like namespaces and schemas. Currently we are playing fast and loose with it and tools are not typically happy with build.xml files. I know in my build file IDEA hilites tons of "errors" (that are not really errors). You are proposing that we use Java's standard MANIFEST features, but why not stick to standard XML features like a schema?
Don't get me wrong though - I think its quite cool that Ant is as extensible as it is and I've learned a lot of cool things with reflection and how it plays with the build file format thanks to working with Ant. I'm the one that added the DyanmicConfigurator - so I can be blamed for making schema compliance even more impossible to obtain.
Again, lets not get hung up on the descriptor syntax. Working implementation first - then we can debate the details. We can make it the defining goal for an Ant 1.6 release when all the fiddly details have been ironed out! :)
We have had working implementation(s) for quite a while.
But the current one does not support adding other components like conditions, mappers, filters, and selectors.
Erik
