Interesting discussion. I've been using Ant quite a bit recently, and have
been enjoying it. Here is my 2 cents:
1. Do people want a build system or a scripting language? Target-less files
and top-level tasks start to move Ant into the realm of scripting language
but without any of the built-in control constructs of a real scripting
language. This can easily become a slippery slope as people see Ant as a
neat way to make a bunch of <task> calls but then get frustrated when trying
to use Ant for logic-heavy/algorithmic purposes that are hard to realize in
XML. If I'm wrong and people just want to use top-level tasks for
initialization purposes then they should just use an "init" target that
everything depends on. Targets force developers into a basic mindset that
will eventually help them generate better Ant files. Heck, I'd even argue
that <property> tags, and even <taskdef> tags, should never have been
allowed outside of <target> tags in the first place (but I've only started
using Ant recently, so I'll keep those opinions to myself :)
But, hey, if people WANT to move Ant to be more general-purpose and
scripting-language-like, then I suppose that is fine. But be aware of the
direction that could take it. Whole new cans of worms can be opened up.
2. I don't buy the "removing the target requirement makes it easier for
newbies" argument. Targets aren't too difficult to figure out and are one
of the basic constructs within a build system (which, for this argument, I'm
assuming Ant still is.) You're not doing newbies any favors by allowing
them to ignore targets. There is nothing difficult about:
<project name="foo" default="main">
<target name="main">
... fun and exciting stuff ...
</target>
</project>
And if the concepts put into practice above are too difficult for someone to
grasp then maybe a build system isn't what they are looking for. This isn't
being elitist - just trying to stick to a basic standard.
3. Finally, maybe I missed something, but I don't see any problems these
suggestions are solving. Do we want to risk compromising the integrity of
well-formed Ant build scripts to make a few fringe cases easier?
I don't mean to upset anybody but Ant is very cool and, so far, very clean
and focused. I don't want to see it get mussed up with unnecessary new
"features". Perhaps I'm just being too rigorous.
However, if my vote counts, I'm -1 all around - targets should be required
and target-less tasks should not be allowed.
-Aaron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick (Gus) Heck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 11:23 AM
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] target-less build files
>
>
> I already place all my setup stuff in an "init" task that
> requires that
> the public-target task have been run to set a property... preventing
> command line invocation of targets that don't depend on both init and
> public. (or neither, but all tasks in my files depend on
> "init"). Such a
> change would quite definately break my builds.
>
> -Gus
>
> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Stephane Bailliez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > but don't you think it would be better to have some sort
> of reserved
> > > keyword for a target like "init" or whatever that will be
> always be
> > > invoked at runtime before anything ?
> >
> > And break old build files because you couldn't place <property>
> > outside of targets.
> >
> > No magic names, please. A new construct like <init> has been
> > discussed and vetoed before.
> >
> > Stefan
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
