> -----Original Message----- > From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 1:38 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [ant2] Optional and Core designations > > > Jim Jackl-Mochel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [1] Are we planning on having the ant2 optional and core tasks > > continue to be part of seperate packages ? > > This will drop out of the task library concept IMHO. > > Core tasks and types are those that ship with a "core distribution" of > Ant. Whether they will form a single library or several has not been > decided. I'd expect this core task library to be a rather small > subset of the tasks that currently make up Ant. > > Optional tasks will get distributed as task libraries. Related tasks > grouped into one library, but it will be more than one lib. >
This is what I had hoped for ! > > Having done many rebuilds of ANT in which I have had to remove/add > > core/optional tasks I would love to have a cleaner mechanism to > > define what is included in a current configuration of ANT. > > The mechanism will be something like "everything that lives in a task > library in ANT_HOME/lib will be available". The distinction between > core and optional tasks is a question of organization on the Apache > side of things, an instance of Ant won't know whether a task has been > optional or a core task. > > This will also make things a lot more modular - rebuilding Ant > shouldn't be necessary. > Excellent ! I was going to suggest this if appropriate. > > The idea of changing a package name when an optional task becomes > > partt of the core seems awkward. > > Have we ever done that? > Not to my Knowledge, but the existence of the classification implies the possibility of promotion... > > [2] Has any consideration been given to BuildID and VersionID tasks > > ? > > All it needs is somebody to write them 8-) OK, it looks like I am volunteering... :-) > > Stefan
