Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
This is fine. But still, the main drive of my question stands:
For people that are proposing alternative syntax for ANT, how would they tell a basic task like <ant> to use a different parser?
Well, I think the contract of the <ant> task is to process an XML based build file. If someone wants to proces a different syntax, they need to either provide their own version of <ant> or augment <ant> to support different buildfile types.
Would they have to provide their own <ant> implementation and
replace the default <ant>?
Yes, they could do that.
If an IDE constructs a model on the fly (no XML file) how can <antcall> work (have you change the implementation?) since it only calls <ant>.
Of course I changed the implementation since I did not want to reparse a model that has already been parsed. This is the mutant implementation of <antcall>
public void callTarget(Map properties, List targets)
throws ExecutionException {
runBuild(frame.getProject(), properties, targets);
}Since the project model just represents the buildfile in mutant, this is easy to do - there is no execution context info stored in the project model.
This is where I kind of get puzzled on how worth is allowing IDEs to
pass their own pre-build model. It seems to me you will need the written
XML for any real build, and if that is the case then we should really define
the interface to be the XML and not the Project instance.
I disagree.
Conor
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
