I agree. I moved our builds from make/Imake based approach to Ant. That required writing build.xml files and then creating the jars and zips and comparing them, line by line, byte by byte, with the same jars and zips coming from the old builds until I could exactly reproduce our build products. Back then, I couldn't even use the earliest versions of Ant because of various issues. Issues that were fixed by a very responsive and responsible development community, and my hat's off to all of you, then and now.
As Diane says, if Ant2 provides capability that I must have for our builds, I'll just do the same thing all over again, although I'd expect it to be bit easier... Conversely, the burden is on all the Ant 2 visionaries to give us a product worth moving to! It better handle parallelism, or threads, or what ever name you want to call it, so that we can start servers, bang them for tests, and shut down, and deal gracefully with errors. Or run tasks that are not dependent, such as compiling java classes while compiling JSP's... We better be able to define new tasks easily and drop them in via a simple mechanism. There are probably other issues, but that's not my main point. My main point is, if you build it (well enough) we will convert... Diane Holt wrote: > > As someone who wears a "build-master" hat (among others), I can say this: > If there's some compelling reason to switch, it'll get done. IOW, if > there's something I really want/need with Ant2 that I can't get from Ant1, > then I'll grab Ant2 and have at the build. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
