On Nov 8, 2010, at 10:20 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote: > sebb wrote: > >> On 8 November 2010 16:05, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 8 November 2010 12:46, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Why do we have a dependency on ant? >>> >>> No idea - looks like it's not needed. >> >> Actually, the tasks package uses org.apache.tools.ant (I was looking >> for org.apache.ant) > > See also: http://commons.apache.org/vfs/anttasks.html >
Right, and Ant, IMO, is a special case: In Ant 1.7.x we gave higher prominence to Ant's Resource type and refactored damned near everything to use Resources/ResourceCollections. Because VFS provides a compatibility layer for *older* versions of Ant, I would suggest the minimum Ant version be left as early as possible, until, of course, the Ant compatibility APIs are rewritten to implement Ant Resources/ResourceCollections. Maybe that will happen in VFS 3.0; I don't know that I would have the time to do it now. :/ -Matt > - Jörg > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
