----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > count the number of methods it requires. How many of those will ant > actually use ? Probably 20% - the remaining 80% are overkill and cruft.
Can you give me an example of what you are referring to? Even without knowing explicitly, I would think that the use of a base class would eliminate much of the "cruft" (great word!). BTW, the JDOM group estimates that 20% of the DOM is cruft. > Any two-way capabilities that are added but are not needed by the core are > overhead. Ant should not be engineered around how it may need to be used > but how it actually is used. There is no problem making it possible to use > it in different contexts as long as there is no cost to the core - but with > w3c DOM there is. Hence why it will never get put in core. I think this is a prime reason why the "core" should only be a set of interfaces. At some point it may be clear that a "Project" and a "Target" are nothing more than specialized "Tasks". > Both proposals implement it as does another that will be checked in > shortly. They are not as standard but it is easy enough to create a smaller > more directed interface. Are you talking about myrmidon and Anteater? I don't see it in Anteater, but perhaps you have access to code that isn;t checked in. Anteater is very sparse right now, but I'm sure JDD has a bunch of code that hasn;t been checked in to CVS. A cursory look at myrmidon does not make it clear how changes to a Task can be written to a build script. jim
