Especially the line that:
"The point is that builds can become arbitrarily complex, and anything less than a full programming language is just doesn’t cut it."
And with Ant, you get to choose what programming language that is: <script>.... and now in 1.6, <scriptdef> (sorry, should have mentioned that earlier) for defining true Ant tasks with the (BSF supported) language of your choice.
I'm not sure that taking a generic programming language and using it as a build language is the right approach, however. I would be more excited about a more domain-specific language (that used OGNL for binding and actions, of course :-)
I definitely agree that doing some OGNL stuff at least in Ant property syntax would be pretty slick and certainly more intertwining would be quite interesting. I'm a big OGNL fan now that I'm doing Tapestry work. Why the Struts folks balked at my suggestions even though WebWork2 and Tapestry (and of course WebOGNL) use it is a testament to, errr, something not right (I'm trying to phrase this nicely :).
Rake supposedly the build tool that bridges declarative versus programmatic giving the power of both: <http://rake.rubyforge.org/> - Fowler seems to dig it.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
