Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
How committed are we to *all* this things? I really do not remember if there
have been votes in all this details.
Quoting from http://jakarta.apache.org/ant/ant2/features.html
"Ant2 will have a clear separation between the front-end that is responsible for user interactions, the object model that represents the project to build and the part of Ant that runs the build process itself. This separation is expected to ease the integration of Ant (or parts of it) into other products."
The reason for my question is that I do remember
the huge discussion we had about how AntGUIs were suppose to communicate with
ANT itself (can they manipulate the build-model?) or should all communications
be thru XML (either text or (J)DOM?).
In my view, all front end processes will manipulate a build model - not DOM/JDOM/SAX or anything else XML specific. Some build models may ceom from non-XML sources including GUI models, embedded code, or whatever else you want to think of. XML representation is just one possible representation.
Independently of what it is decided, I would like that any arquitecture we come up with will manage this "keyworkds" are its functionality in a pluggable fashion. That will allow for extensions or customizations in the future on this regard. I am not saying they are tasks, mayby they are ModelBuilders :)
The approach I outlined should support enough extensibility. I think we need to be careful not to overabstract the parser to cater for future possibilities that may never eventuate. Lets add it in when we really have a need.
One thing that I would like to be able to do is for ANT to have a more reasonable
implementation of <antcall>. Today every <antcall> reads and parses the project file over and over.
Yep that is bad and doesn't work at all when the build model comes from a non-XML source. This will go, I am sure.
Conor
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
