On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Kevin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Personally I think we should at least consider including a 'script' > language with the full dist (starting from 1.8) so that scriptdef > isn't a lame duck out of the box.
Biggest problem might be that the language needs to be license compatible. > I also think that a lot of the code in the current optional tasks > could be re-written using scriptdefs instead and provided as an > antlib. This would keep the core in Java, but move the more > 'scripty' style of tasks into a more appropriate tool/lang I'm not convinced that script languages are more appropriate 8-) > Downsides are of course that the implementation language of Ant > changes (core in Java, some optional tasks implemented as scriptdefs > + a. n. other language). > > Anyway, please post flames in 3..2..1 Not a flame. Even though I personally don't like the idea of replacing existing tasks, I wouldn't stand in the way. But an observation. Gump used to be written in Java and XSLT. It was re-written in Python because Python seemed to be more appropriate and Gump might attract developers from the non-Java parts of the ASF. The result today is that the number of active developers has dropped from about two to about zero. If we chose a "standard" scripting language for Ant, it means the Ant developer community must feel comfortable with it. Comfortable enough to be able to maintain and review the code. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
