On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- we can restrict the set of elements under antlib to taskdef,
typdef or role ( after role is added to ant ), or we can allow more
description looks important as well.
Stefan
So we add this then. I am not closed to progress and change but let start small.
Jose Alberto
-Original Message-
From: Costin Manolache [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 25 April 2003 20:10
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Antlib descriptor
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
I
(Boy, you fall behind a couple of days on your email and suddenly an
avalanche breaks loose)
At 10:39 AM 4/25/2003 -0700, Costin Manolache wrote:
However I'm more convinced than ever that the XML should use a subset of
ant, and reuse the same processing infrastructure. I.e. not another parser
or
On Friday, April 25, 2003, at 01:39 PM, Costin Manolache wrote:
New thread.
+1 :)
However I'm more convinced than ever that the XML should use a subset
of
ant, and reuse the same processing infrastructure. I.e. not another
parser
or rules.
I'll defer commenting on this until I ponder it more
Erik Hatcher wrote:
- maybe we want antlibs to have some initialization. This can be
easily done
by allowing more ant elements in the descriptor
- maybe we'll want to allow antlib to declare targets - that could be
used
in depends or antcall ( target name=foo
depends=myAntLib:antlibTarget/
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- maybe we want antlibs to have some initialization. This can be
easily done
by allowing more ant elements in the descriptor
- maybe we'll want to allow antlib to declare targets -
that could be
used
in depends or antcall ( target
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
I am not too keen on having alive ANTS roaming in my classpath.
Jar files are passive things, in general having too many in your
classpath does not mean you will execute more stuff. I think that is nice
and autoinitializing jars (antlibs) sound way too scary at
