On 2/16/2012 2:36 PM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
Le 16 févr. 2012 à 20:47, Bruce Atherton a écrit :
I'd hope to go further than that in backwards compatibility. I work with a lot
of companies that are:
a) resistant to learning new things unless there is a good reason for it
(such as the migration from Apache HTTP Server from 1.x to 2.x to resolve
security issues)
b) have a number of separate Ant build scripts that follow different
standards in different areas of the company, particularly if they have
and c) need to have a justification to allocate resources to upgrade and change
a working build to use new features, which standardizing builds across the
organization using new features in a major release that simplify the build
system may offer them.
I don't know conclusion you're having there. Such companies shouldn't worry
about any new major version, because they actually do want to stick with the
old one for stability purpose. I guess that the companies which would be
troubled is the ones which want to keep up with the releases, migrations from
one version to another should not be too painful.
No, you are right that these companies need a good reason to upgrade.
What I am saying is that the pain that is caused by trying to make minor
modifications to large complicated build systems, combined with having
multiple large build systems that do very different things and the
difficulty in dealing with these major changes in operating, is the
thing that can cause at least some of them to dedicate the resources to
standardize on something simpler. But I haven't found any that are
interested in considering a new build system. They know Ant. Any
upgrades they want to do in their own time. That is why I think backward
compatibility is so important. They can roll out an upgrade to Ant 2,
make sure everything works as expected, and then in their own time roll
out a simplified, standardized build to each of the systems they are
currently running it.
Well, again, I think it's already there, no need to wait for an Ant 2.0 :)
If you add the groovy-front.jar in Ant's boot classpath, write a build.groovy,
then a launch of ant with no parameter on the command line will execute your
groovy build script. See
ProjectHelperRepository.getProjectHelperForBuildFile(Resource)
I've got a lot of customers with the kinds of Ant build systems I am
talking about. Precisely zero of them use anything other than an XML
format for the build. Downloading extra bits to do funky things is not
in their DNA. Some of them are forbidden to use Ant Contrib because it
hasn't been through a security audit.
I used to think we are living in a Maven world and that Ant was fine
being just in maintenance mode. Since I've been helping these customers
integrate my product with their systems, including their build systems,
I've come to realize that there is still a very strong need for Ant out
there, and that they are hurting from the complexity of it. Some of the
complexity is from build systems that were written pre-macrodef and they
haven't seen that one feature as compelling enough to commit to a
rewrite. Some use macros, though, and things are still pretty complicated.
I think this is Ant's market: places that don't want the dependency
features of Maven and require complete control over exactly how their
build is done. A lot of companies have their own, internally written
build file generators just so their build systems are consistent and
exactly what they want. Our Related Projects and External Tools page has
some of these that were made public, I suspect.
Surely there is a better way than requiring users of Ant to write
generators to deal with the complexity and keep it customized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org