interesting info. It looks like the idea of the redesign has been discussed a lot in the past. Another good point, is to have ant independent of any external libraries. However, I am wondering if this applies to run time environment ? For example, writing a core ant (mainly build.xml parser), as an osgi bundle. And collection of bundles for Javac, Java, Copy,... etc. would:
1- be independent of any external libraries and relies on JRE to build. 2- allow integration with IDEs. 3- allow to compile and build the build system, without a build system (ie, using bootstrap). or like you said "self-building". Would this be acceptable idea ? A core bundle, and extra bundles for basic tasks. A bundle for ivy (maybe). We can even have a bundle to install additional bundles remotely.... And with Java7 NIO the performance will be fine. comments ? On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Bruce Atherton <br...@callenish.com> wrote: > This brings up a point to consider if a rewrite is desired. Ant has always > avoided relying on external libraries because it is usually the first thing > in the build chain. It can't have any dependencies itself if it is to be > self-building. There are tasks that require external libraries to be > compiled, yes, but they are all optional. That is why there is a bootstrap > build before the full build. The only libraries you can rely on being there > are the ones that ship with the JRE. > > This could change in Ant 2 if people wanted but I think we'd need a > strategy for it. For example, there was a lot of talk at one point about > moving the package name from org.apache.tools.ant.* to org.apache.ant.*. > Doing this would allow both Ant 1.x and Ant 2 to exist in the same program > (like IDEs), and it would allow a bootstrap Ant 1.x to build Ant 2. Doing > that would allow the use of libraries. > > I'm sure there could be other solutions as well, but I don't think anyone > should automatically assume that non-optional libraries will be available > until it is decided that that will happen. Assuming anything happens. > > > On 2/13/2012 12:02 PM, Jeffrey E Care wrote: > >> Mansour Al Akeel <mansour.alak...@gmail.com> wrote on 02/13/2012 >> 01:57:56 PM: >> >> > From: Mansour Al Akeel <mansour.alak...@gmail.com> >> > To: Ant Developers List <dev@ant.apache.org> >> > Cc: Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> >> > Date: 02/13/2012 01:58 PM >> > Subject: Re: NIO 2.0 == Ant 2.0? was Re: Java NIO support >> > >> > Bruce, >> > In fact I was thinking about the same thing. The idea of forking Ant and >> > rewrite parts of it to use Java 7 NIO, and introduce java plugin frame >> > work >> > http://jpf.sourceforge.net/**crossed<http://jpf.sourceforge.net/crossed>my >> > mind few times. >> >> >> Why JPF instead of OSGi or whatever extensibility mechanism is working >> it's way through the JCP for Java 8? IMO the idea of basing an Ant re-write >> on some dubiously supported clone of Eclipse's plugin mechanism from 8 >> years ago isn't very appealing. >> ______________________________**______________________________** >> ______________________________**__ >> Jeffrey E. (Jeff) Care >> _ca...@us.ibm.com_ <mailto:ca...@us.ibm.com> >> >> IBM WebSphere Application Server >> WAS Release Engineering >> >> >> WebSphere Mosiac >> WebSphere Brandmark >> >> >>
