James Duncan Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/18/00 2:49 AM, "Stefan Bodewig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Maybe it would have been better to get a clear vision of the >> feature set we require from Ant 2, formalize that and then maybe >> let different implementations compete - this is what I tried to >> start when you announced AntEater, but then I consider myself more >> of an Evolutionary. > > Then maybe I should sit down and write the functional spec of what > Ant2 should be. Then the code is a SMOP and it won't come down to > evaluation of several different code bases.
There has been a start - see the "Some thoughts on Ant 1.3 and 2.0" thread as well as "Proposed API Refactoring" and maybe others. I think the effort of putting together a spec stopped when you announced AntEater. Right now (vacation, I'm coming) I don't have the time to put one together but will be happy to contribute to it early nect year. > The projects that use Ant have been complaining about things > changing. It is the build tool for Jakarta projects, and those > people have been telling me that things are chaotic. Sorry, but they should have told ant-dev not you. I'm sure their complaints would have been addressed. Stefan
