> But it seems to me that Ant has a positive side too:

I agree that there are positive reasons to use Ant (that is why it was 
done in the first place).  It is just that in retrospect, I don't 
believe the pluses outweigh the minuses.

> * People with Java background probably know Ant better that
>   'make'.   Ant seems to become 'build tool of choice' in
>   Java world.

Perhaps, but I'm not convinced that either of these arguments is true. 
I have seen make used by more projects than ant, and a developer 
building postgres from source, certainly needs to be familiar with make.

> * When Ant is set up, it takes care of all local Java
>   environment, so we in PostgreSQL source do not need
>   to bother about it.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Can you provide an example?

> * In Ant the build file will be much less complex
>   than a Makefile with same functionality.  And same
>   time in Ant it is much easier to check local
>   Java internal setup.

I agree that this is true, but I think a much better job can be done to 
minimize the added complexity.  I have looked at the old makefile and it 
was quite complex.  But I have ideas on how to reduce that complexity.

Basically I want to trade off a little more complexity on the part of 
the developers of jdbc, for less complexity for users to install and build.


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
    (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])

Reply via email to