> -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, 11 December 2000 12:34 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Optional Tasks > > > At 12:02 11/12/00 +1030, Barrie Treloar wrote: > >On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Mariusz Nowostawski wrote: > > > >> But should those "interfaces" being kept in ANT core, or should they be > >> kept in seperate, optional tasks repository? For javac, it > should be kept > >[del] > > > >> I prefer a central repository and "unification factory" for optional > >> tasks, which could take care of defining those "interfaces", and which > >> could keep track of all the optional tasks. The only exception would be > >> javac being part of the core. > > > >I think you will find that most people would say that "javac" is not > >part of core. > > > >The way core has been described, IIRC, > > Project, > > Task, > > Target, > > Property. > > Or alternatively ;) > > Core= Project + Target + task > Core Tasks= Property + Taskdef >
How about: Core Tasks = all tasks ant needs to build itself. Conor
