On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Erik Hatcher wrote: > The philosophical(?) (and rhetorical :) question is: why should Ant be tied > to XML? Ant is really the engine that processes the build DAG and its > associated tasks. How it got into that representation is not really that > relevant and there are certainly plenty of interesting and practical > possibilities that would come from such decoupling. > > Having a build.xml is still an important practical thing so that builds are > portable rather than a build description being tied back to an IDE directly > or some other mechanism. And becoming decoupled completely from build.xml > opens up some good doors and some pitfalls with IDE's possibly wanting to > drive Ant's engine without a build.xml (sure, they could do it now, but its > not really very easy). >
And this point of view I can agree with. (Apparently my $0.02 goes further than I thought.) Out of curiosity (I've been out of the Ant game for FAR too long) have any strides in this direction been made/proposed for Ant2? Glenn McAllister SOMA Networks, Inc. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
