>Over the past months (no, years) we've spent a lot of time maintaining
>optional tasks and fixing bugs in them, more time than we spent on
>improving Ant itself.  As a consequence you'll find a big reluctance
>with Ant developers to accept any new tasks at all.

I see the problem.

>  In particular if
>the new tasks relies on a third-party tool/library that is an open
>source project itself.  We'd probably send you back to FOP.
>Not having followed the discussion leading up to this, why would you
>want to ship it with Ant rather than FOP?

The advantages to shipping with Ant are that it would become more of a "standard" and 
get more exposure and usage.  It is also nice to have all the task documentation 
accessible through the single (frames-based) web page.

I know from experience that a user is more likely to start using an Ant task that is 
built in to Ant, even if it requires external Jars.  I've been using <xslt> for 
months, but only recently began using the Fop ant task.

>Currently we are adding the infrastructure for something we call Ant
>libraries.  ... This will make deploying third party
>tasks even easier than it is now.

That's a great solution.  One suggestion for Ant libraries - it would be nice to have 
a task "name registry" so that the task names can be standardized.

Also, it might make sense to have a recommended mechanism for having multiple 
implementations implement the same Ant task.  I'm sure you  must have this mechanisms 
for <javac> and it looks like <xslt> uses Trax.  If there were a standardized <xslfo> 
task it is conceivable that people might want to use a processor other than Fop.

Is there a link that I can look at to see the work in progress in this area?
>> I assume that if we targeted Ant 1.6, we would use the 0.20.x code
>> base.
>If it wants to be in Ant 1.6,

I'm sorry my message really had two *subjects* and I only put one in the subject line. 
 I was trying to say that we should put the changes into the Fop project and begin the 
process of submitting to Ant.  The three "options" were for putting the patch into a 
Fop release.  (I suspected that the Ant committers would feel more comfortable with 
including a task that had been "shipping" for some time.)

-- Sean


To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to