That's part of the (unresolved) discussion of splitting AntCore into AntLibs
and creating a combined release ...
- What should be a "core" component?
<svn> --> SVN-AntLib
<copy> --> Filesystem-AntLib ???
...
- What is the AntCore version the AntLib must be compatible with?
HEAD, Last Released, Older ...
- Create several distributions
a) core only
b) minimal (basically the functionality of "old" core)
c) complete (Core and all AntLibs the Ant project offers)
- What is the layout of an installed Ant with Antlibs?
(I am creating one for my work:
| index.html New Initial Point for
documentation
| toc.html Links to: Ant Manual, Site,
AntLib docs
|
+---antlibs Installed AntLibs
| | ant-antunit-1.0.jar Apache Ant AntUnit
| | ant-dotnet-1.0.jar Apache Ant DotNet
| | ant-rzfAntlib-0.1-SNAPSHOT.jar Custom Tasks
| | antlib_ccm.jar Custom Synergy (based on
Apache Ant)
| |
| +---ant-antunit-1.0 docs of AntUnit
| +---ant-dotnet-1.0 docs of DotNet
| +---ant-rzfAntlib-0.1-SNAPSHOT docs of Custom Tasks
| \---antlib_ccm docs of Custom Synergy
|
+---bin
| ant.bat modified: "-lib antlibs"
|
+---docs Original Ant-bin-Distro
+---etc Original Ant-bin-Distro
\---lib Original Ant-bin-Distro
Personally I think splitting is good as we could get rid of a huge codebase with
lots of dependencies. And we can focus knowledge on an AntLib: introduce new
committers per
AntLib ...
And we could get rid off "old" tasknames (javadoc2, ...) while refactoring.
BWC is a problem here ...
* build file bwc
I think we should provide BWC for existing build files. That could be done
with
automatically load special AntLib uri's. Maybe a new "-antlib" parameter and
a modified
start script with "-lib antlib -antlib antlib:org.apache.ant.svn -antlib
antlib:org.apache.ant.cvs".
* API bwc
This would be fine, but we earn lot of old api code. No clean refactoring
would be possible.
Idea: "AntLib OldAPI" with facade classed in the old java namespace
delegating to the new
implementing classes. Must be loaded by default.
Jan
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Gesendet: Freitag, 9. März 2007 11:35
>An: Ant Developers List
>Betreff: Re: CVS - to antlib or not?
>
>On 3/9/07, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No,
>> I do not like this.
>>
>> We have svn in ant core, and due to bc reasons
>opps that should be cvs....
>> we always will.
>>
>> I would perfer to move svn to ant core, or
>> at least bundle the ant-svn antlib with the release
>> of ant so that one does not have to
>> do an extra download.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> On 3/9/07, Kevin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Since we have an svn antlib, I was thinking should we move the cvs
>> > code out of the core into it's own lib?
>> >
>> > I've done the majority of the work (setting up the projects copying
>> > and renaming code etc), but I need to know whether this is
>acceptable
>> > for sandbox or not?
>> >
>> > For BWC we could delegate calls to the normal CVS task to
>the antlib
>> > version for now and then later remove the stub in the core after a
>> > reasonable amount of time has passed.
>> >
>> > My rationale for doing this is to get most of the SCM
>stuff out of the
>> > core and into separate antlibs. CVS is just low-hanging fruit so I
>> > thought we could at least give it some thought.
>> >
>> > Any objections?
>> > Kev
>> >
>> >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
