Peter Donald wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2001 05:25, Larry V. Streepy, Jr. wrote:
> > I question, then, what is it that ant is supposed to do well?
>
> Go read first section of front page on ant site.
Okay, just did that, and it has this to say:
Ant is different. Instead of a model where it is extended with shell
based commands, it is extended using Java classes. Instead of
writing shell commands, the configuration files are XML based
calling out a target tree where various tasks get executed. Each
task is run by an object which implements a particular Task
interface.
Granted, this removes some of the expressive power that is inherent
by being able to construct a shell command such as `find . -name
foo -exec rm {}` but it gives you the ability to be cross platform.
To work anywhere and everywhere. And hey, if you really need to
execute a shell command, Ant has an exec rule that allows different
commands to be executed based on the OS that it is executing on.
Sounds like a build tool that is extended by writing java classes. I
don't see how flow control violates that goal.
> > I know that I'm repeating a previous
> > statement, but what good is a "pure" tool that doesn't address the needs
> > of the community it is supposed to serve?
>
> no good. But I will repeat the question in reverse. What good is a tool that
> can't be understood by it's users? I have offered a solution to your
> problems. You choose not to accept it.
This is where I get confused by your arguments. That question contains
the implicit assumption that flow control "can't be understood by [ants]
users". I think that is selling the ant user community way short.
I don't understand how a task like "sql" serves the core goal of ant,
but if/then/else does not.
--
Larry V. Streepy, Jr.
Chief Technical Officer and VP of Engineering
Health Language, Inc. -- "We speak the language of healthcare"
970/626-5028 (office) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
970/626-4425 (fax) http://www.healthlanguage.com
