At 11:43 AM 6/13/2003 -0700, James Duncan Davidson wrote:
Not that useful but a bit more grist for this mill. It certainly showed me that it is hard to cram the expressiveness of the XML approach into method calls. I had to limit myself to a very narrow subset of tasks and their usage patterns.
It is a tradeoff.
I'm curious about this tradeoff and about the "XML Burden" you mention in your blog. Is the issue using XML or is it better access to scripting facilities within Ant?
The reason I ask is that Jelly already provides an XML scripting language that can run Ant tasks. Using Jelly would allow both the expressiveness of XML and the flexibility of scripting languages, for those that need it. It would also minimize the mental shifts as well as the ugliness of mixing different languages in a single file.
I don't know if Jelly is the right answer to the problem you see (I've never used it myself). I know that many people are intimidated by XML, especially XML that has a lot of namespace stuff going on and Jelly has plenty of that. Also, Python is a very intuitive language to write in, whereas using tags is awkward. I'm just trying to make sure I understand the problem you are identifying.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
