> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 11:24 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Did somebody say Shut up and Write? :) > > I'm just a lurker/ant user so my opinion is probably not worth > much. I have to > say though that I like this proposal. To argue that it could potentially > provide too much power seems silly. >
That wasn't my point really. I was just detecting a bit of potential scope-creep, that's all. Nothing about the internal design. > Conceptually this proposal is much simpler than what we have > today and certainly > much simpler than JDD is proposing for Ant 2. > > I would agree that the extra flexibility provided by this proposal could > potentially be abused, but don't forget that the commiters will > still control > the core of ant. If a patch doesn't fit with their vision of ant > it doesn't > have to be applied. > > Thanks to everyone who has made Ant what it is today. It's saved > me hours of > work in the time that I've used it and I look forward to seeing > how it evolves. > > Merry Xmas, > > Glen Stampoultzis > > > > > > > > "James Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 21/12/2000 11:39:52 PM > > Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: (bcc: Glen Stampoultzis/ITD/MEL/Ansett/AU) > Subject: Re: Did somebody say Shut up and Write? :) > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Duncan Davidson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Genericity leads to the "trying to boil the ocean" problem. > ANT is very > > > vulnerable to this. I would hate to see it devolve into some > sort of wierdo > > > XML scripting language. > > I think we have to take a big breath and step back. I position my > proposal as a > more "generalized" approach over Ant 1.x, and it is true that I > have not decided > to put Project and Target in "core" Ant. I think this is a very > wise move, and I > have only heard arguments against it phrased as "Well in my > experience this is > not a good idea". Perhaps we can put egos aside and debate the > design based on > its technical merits. > > The realization that Project and Target *are* Tasks greatly simplifies the > development and maintenance of the execution engine. This seems to be a > difficult perspective for those who grew up (or wrote) Ant 1.0. > It seemed very > clear to me, and it allows for a true "core", where Project and > Target still > exist, but as Tasks on top of the core. Seems pretty logical to > me. In addition > to supporting the build semantics of Ant 1.x, it doesn't restrict > users from > using Ant in different paradigms that we haven't even considered yet. > > I have not done anything truly radical. I have simply considered > the "execution > engine" as core, and moved Project and Target higher up in the > framework. I > think that anyone with good design skills and an objective eye, > will see that > this is the "right" design decision. Ant actually becomes more > powerful and > flexible by simply moving the "core" demarcation point one step > closer to the > execution engine/ > > As far as Joshua's claim that by infusing Ant with this amount of > power could > "devolve [Ant] into some sort of weirdo XML scripting language." > I fully concur. > I *can* see this happening. Remove the word "weirdo", and to some > degree "XML", > and I think this would be a wonderful evolution. Ant is a wonderful > cross-platform build tool, and it should always be so. frANTic > does nothing to > thwart this direction. It simply and effectively defines an Ant > core that is > easy to maintain, build Tasks upon, integrate scripting, scope > parameters, and > extend. > > jim > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > _____________________________________________________________________ > CAUTION - This message may contain privileged and confidential > information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. > If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby > notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction > of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in > error please notify Ansett Australia immediately. Any views expressed > in this message are those of the individual sender and may not > necessarily reflect the views of Ansett Australia. > > ABN Ansett Australia Ltd 37 004 209 410 > ABN Ansett International Ltd 72 060 622 460 > _____________________________________________________________________ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
