Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le Mardi, 30 sep 2003, � 14:43 Europe/Zurich, Berin Loritsch a �crit :I see your point, but IMHO the big advantage with including ANT is that the only requirement on the users is to install a JDK....Things like ANT should be installed like the tool that it is...
We are talking about professional people here. Developers. Hopefully, if they are planning on building Cocoon, they would know enough on how to install ANT....
I know, but since 2.1 (and until real blocks come around), Cocoon *is* indeed distributed in source, see http://wiki.cocoondev.org/Wiki.jsp?page=LatestRelease
There are currently no released builds.
So the problem is currently with users, not developers.
...In projects where I'm working we do it slightly differently, we have a parallel CVS module for tools, shared between projects, with directory names including version numbers, and the build.sh script accesses the appropriate version of the tool with relative paths like
../cvs-tools-sandbox/ant/1.5.1
With avoids heavy duplication of tools yet allows each project to use the "right" version of a tool.
Still -1. While this can be a "special" issue, ANT 1.6 should be backwards
compatible with ANT 1.5.1. I know that 1.5.4 is. They have a number of
test cases to verify that....
In theory yes - in practice, it is very hard to get several project teams to agree on a common version quickly, and during the "transition period" until everyone agrees there can be problems.
But again, I understand your point of view, it is the "duplication of tools" vs. "safer distribution" debate.
Given the current need for a source code only distribution, I think the duplication is "less worse" than the risks of wrong ant versions of installations on the user's side.
-Bertrand
