Re: [Nant-users] checking nant version

[Ian MacLean]

Gert Driesen wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian MacLean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Gert Driesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jeroen Zwartepoorte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Castro, Edwin Gabriel 
(Firing Systems Engr.)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Nant-users] checking nant version


Gert Driesen wrote:

Gert Driesen wrote:
Jeroen,
The <script> is currently not support on Mono. The reason for this 
is that the <script> task supports C#, VB.NET and JScript.NET, and 
Mono is still lacking support for JScript.NET (at least in 
officially released versions).

I wonder if we can get this working by loading the language 
providers via reflection. It would be a shame to do without the 
script task because of the lack of JScript which probably isn't 
even used that much for nant build scripts.

Yeah, we should probably also support third-party code 
generators/providers. Should we have a nested <generator> element, 
which has two attributes : assembly and provider (or so) :

<script>
   <generator assembly="NemerleCodeProvider.dll" 
provider="Nemerle.Contrib.NemerleCodeProvider" />
   <code>
       .....
   </code>
</script>

(assembly could be optional)
I already have this working with the following syntax:
<script language="Other" 
provider="Nemerle.Contrib.NemerleCodeProvider, NemerleCodeProvider.dll">

Do you actually pass both the class name and the assembly file name in 
one attribute, or was it just a typo and would you just use an 
assembly qualified type name. eg. :

<script language="Other" 
provider="Nemerle.Contrib.NemerleCodeProvider, NemerleCodeProvider, 
Version=0.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null">

no, I pass both in the one attribute.
 ...
</script> - although I'm testing with boo rather than Nemerle.
I'd prefer not to have to add another element but thats an option I 
guess.

Perhaps we should just use the language attribute for that purpose, 
this is also what MS does for the xsd tool :

/language:<language>
   The language to use for the generated code.  Choose from 'CS', 
'VB', 'JS',
  'VJS' or provide a fully-qualified name for a class implementing
   System.CodeDom.Compiler.CodeDomProvider.  The default is 'CS' 
(CSharp).
   Short form is '/l:'.

Well the syntax I've used is what mono uses for *their* xsd tool - so 
its a toss up which is the *better* way.


or should we just allow users to specify a fully qualified name for 
a class implementing System.CodeDom.Compiler.CodeDomProvider in the 
language attribute ?

In that case, the assembly containing the codeprovider should be in 
the GAC, but I don't think that's really an issue ...

I just allow the provider attribute to be just the class name to 
support GAC'd providers.

I have the 'built in' providers loading dynamically as well - ie with 
no hard reference to JScriptProvider

Ok, but what version of the JScript/CSharp/VBNet provider do you 
specify then ?
whichever one is loaded by the current runtime -- exactly as it was 
working before.

Ian
--
Ian MacLean, Developer, 
ActiveState, a division of Sophos
http://www.ActiveState.com


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285
_______________________________________________
Nant-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-users