Re: Ant 2 design (was Re: NIO 2.0 == Ant 2.0?)

2012-02-21 Thread Bruce Atherton
Unit testing has long been considered important for Ant. A published report a few years ago (can't find it now) showed our code coverage was among the highest of the open source projects that they reported on, as I recall. It has often happened that committers push back on code submissions aski

Re: Ant 2 design (was Re: NIO 2.0 == Ant 2.0?)

2012-02-18 Thread Mansour Al Akeel
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Bruce Atherton wrote: > I have similar thoughts on the high level abstract view of Ant. Here is how > I see it: > > 1. Command Line Processor > 2. Build File Parser > 3. Dependency Tree Resolver >    - This is essentially a Dependency Injection/IOC system, but with

Re: Ant 2 design (was Re: NIO 2.0 == Ant 2.0?)

2012-02-18 Thread Bruce Atherton
I have similar thoughts on the high level abstract view of Ant. Here is how I see it: 1. Command Line Processor 2. Build File Parser 3. Dependency Tree Resolver - This is essentially a Dependency Injection/IOC system, but with late binding (Unknown Element) and modification through things l

Re: Ant 2 design (was Re: NIO 2.0 == Ant 2.0?)

2012-02-18 Thread Mansour Al Akeel
Bruce, The current design is simple, and proven successful and easy to maintain. Here's a quick pseudo: 1- parse the build file, initializing all the "DataStructures" and references to the tasks and macros. Populate them all to the running context. Maybe OSGI has something like this. 2- if there

Re: Ant 2 design (was Re: NIO 2.0 == Ant 2.0?)

2012-02-18 Thread Bruce Atherton
Of course you are right, and initially parallelism and distributed builds will probably not be in the initial alpha release (unless it is on someones scratching list). Just getting something to run existing build files reliably will be fine. But you have suggested that we tag build files that

Re: Ant 2 design (was Re: NIO 2.0 == Ant 2.0?)

2012-02-18 Thread Mansour Al Akeel
Keeping it simple, is a great idea. I am not sure if introducing parallelism is a good idea or if it's easy to implement and maintain. If it is design is modular, I think all these can be added as plugins. Performance ??!! On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Bruce Atherton wrote: > This too I find

Ant 2 design (was Re: NIO 2.0 == Ant 2.0?)

2012-02-18 Thread Bruce Atherton
This too I find a great idea. Multicores mean we need more ways of exploiting parallelism, particularly if they can be identified automatically by the application. For backward compatibility it would have to be optional, though, either specified on the command line or at the build file level o