On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 20:25 +0100, Steve Loughran wrote: > Peter Reilly wrote: > > Sorry for asking for another vote on the Classloader for ant issue,
No problem. > I think right now I'm going to in the no category, though +0 rather than > -1. This is not because I dont think its a good idea -I think it is > wonderful- but I think the complications of adding it will add lots of > surprises. Most importantly, it becomes really hard to uninvent once it > has shipped. > I agree with Steve here. 1.7.0 has been 'just around the corner', for a while now, I'd rather not have any new additions that may require a quick 1.7.1 release (not that I think your idea + code is bad). I'm eager to try and get a cleaner integration of scripting into Ant and a new classloader-style mechanism seems a good way to approach that (I like the syntax in the example you posted), but right now I think it's more important to ship what we have. > What we could do is take this as the opportunity to make a working 1.8 > branch and put in in there, and post 1.7.0 think about adding it to the > 1.7.x branch. > +1 new branch for 1.8 and include code for experimental classloaders etc Thanks, Kev --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
