On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 04:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> - internals, core, extensions, etc. That can and should evolve, but I
> don't understand why it have to be a huge jump instead of a gradual
> process, and why we are discussing whole core replacements instead of
> individual features that could be voted and discussed one by one, and
> added in the current ant.
Mainly because many of the features require backwards incompatible changes
which are unacceptable in a stable released project that is used as widely as
ant is. It would be iresponsible of ant-dev to put users through this IMHO.
With ant1.x there is a large effort not to break build files, this sometimes
is inevitable (ie every addition of a new task could potentially cause
conflicts) but we try to minimize the inconvenience.
With ant2 there is much more freedom to experiment with things and users
don't have to suffer through changes (some of which will inevitably be poor
changes and thus need to be reverted).
> At this point and with the current usage of ant, no 'perfect' design
> can justify the pain associated with changing the build files and tasks.
If it was just aesthetics then I would agree but the reason for Ant2 is not
that - it is to be able to provide functionality people have been begging for
for ages.
--
Cheers,
Pete
Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark side, and
it binds the universe together ...
-- Carl Zwanzig
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
