> From: Matt Benson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- Russell Gold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How does this compare with > > <http://www.httpunit.org/doc/dependencies.html>, > > which has been listed on the external tools page > > for several weeks - a task which, when I offered > > it two months ago, was rejected with the comment > > that such tasks don't belong in ant proper? > > As I recall, I asserted that this would be the > prevailing attitude at that time. Dominique, then > teetering at the very _brink_ of "committerhood," held > the opinion that this type of thing would likely cross > the line into being a necessity in the future. My > diagnosis was based on my observations of the > community process more than anything. I don't recall > the topic getting any more negative than that (but I'm > too lazy to go look).
Yes, I second Matt's recollection. I never took the time to study your code, but I definitely kept it in the back of my mind for later on. Then Steve came along and blazed his own trail ;-) I guess the difference is that Steve is already a long time committer, obviously, so he can do as he pleases until someone says anything ;-))) and since he's a committer we know he'll be around to support his creation. One of the reasons behind the 'prevailing attitude' Matt talks about is that people create tasks, submit them to Ant, and then disappear from the face of the earth, leaving the maintenance burden on committers. And since we now have Antlibs, it becomes easier to say to people get create an antlib anyone can use. Neither Matt and I had anything against your task. I hope you'll accept to work with Steve and others to merge your efforts with his. Personally though, I don't like that Steve used HttpClient to do a simple fetch. <get> does not need it. Yes, HttpClient is great and all, but I view it as overkill for this, and an undue dependency, which pulls in yet another dependency. As I though then, and still think now, dependency downloading should be part of Ant code, and not require anything more than JDK 1.2. I know Steve thinks the JDK stinks, but for downloading files java.net is plenty enough, and <get> demonstrates that! --DD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
