You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ant.apache.org by Matt Benson <gu...@yahoo.com> on 2003/08/11 22:53:00 UTC
beating the dead Ant 1.6 horse
I know the quote is "there is no timeframe yet on this
release". But is there a ballpark? 2003? Some
particular half of 2004?
Thanks,
Matt
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: beating the dead Ant 1.6 horse
Posted by peter reilly <pe...@corvil.com>.
On Thursday 14 August 2003 06:38, Costin Manolache wrote:
> Conor MacNeill wrote:
> > The others are antlib/namespace/polymorph stuff. I'm wondering if we can
> > get to the point where the ant optional tasks are packaged as antlibs and
> > potentially not added to the root loader if their supporting libraries
> > are not also available to the root loader. This would allow them to be
> > taskdef'd in later in a build.
>
> What's the status on that ? Any decision on how to deal with the loaders ?
> I'll have some time next week, I wanted to finish the classloader task - is
> it still usefull ?
Most definitely.
Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: beating the dead Ant 1.6 horse
Posted by Costin Manolache <cm...@yahoo.com>.
Conor MacNeill wrote:
> The others are antlib/namespace/polymorph stuff. I'm wondering if we can
> get to the point where the ant optional tasks are packaged as antlibs and
> potentially not added to the root loader if their supporting libraries are
> not also available to the root loader. This would allow them to be
> taskdef'd in later in a build.
What's the status on that ? Any decision on how to deal with the loaders ?
I'll have some time next week, I wanted to finish the classloader task - is
it still usefull ?
Costin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: beating the dead Ant 1.6 horse
Posted by Knut Wannheden <kn...@paranor.ch>.
> > The others are antlib/namespace/polymorph stuff. I'm wondering if we can
> > get to the point where the ant optional tasks are packaged as antlibs
and
> > potentially not added to the root loader if their supporting libraries
are
> > not also available to the root loader. This would allow them to be
> > taskdef'd in later in a build.
>
> I would rather leave this for after 1.6 release.
And how about the new PropertyHelper which lets you plugin additional
PropertyHelpers to process properties prefixed with a namespace, i.e.
"foo:my-property"?
--
knut
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: beating the dead Ant 1.6 horse
Posted by peter reilly <pe...@corvil.com>.
On Tuesday 12 August 2003 04:20, Conor MacNeill wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 06:53 am, Matt Benson wrote:
> > I know the quote is "there is no timeframe yet on this
> > release". But is there a ballpark? 2003? Some
> > particular half of 2004?
>
> Ant 1.6 is very much alive, IMHO.
>
> 2003. :-)
>
> IMHO, I would hope to have it soon (where soon is undefined :-)) but I want
> to resolve a few things first ...
>
> Import is one of them - and it is important to get right. There are many
> different views on this from simple include to include with simple renaming
> to something close to an object model and even xslt style operation. I've
> been a little busy lately to push this along. I'll be back ...
>
> The others are antlib/namespace/polymorph stuff. I'm wondering if we can
> get to the point where the ant optional tasks are packaged as antlibs and
> potentially not added to the root loader if their supporting libraries are
> not also available to the root loader. This would allow them to be
> taskdef'd in later in a build.
I would rather leave this for after 1.6 release.
Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: beating the dead Ant 1.6 horse
Posted by Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>.
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 06:53 am, Matt Benson wrote:
> I know the quote is "there is no timeframe yet on this
> release". But is there a ballpark? 2003? Some
> particular half of 2004?
>
Ant 1.6 is very much alive, IMHO.
2003. :-)
IMHO, I would hope to have it soon (where soon is undefined :-)) but I want to
resolve a few things first ...
Import is one of them - and it is important to get right. There are many
different views on this from simple include to include with simple renaming
to something close to an object model and even xslt style operation. I've
been a little busy lately to push this along. I'll be back ...
The others are antlib/namespace/polymorph stuff. I'm wondering if we can get
to the point where the ant optional tasks are packaged as antlibs and
potentially not added to the root loader if their supporting libraries are
not also available to the root loader. This would allow them to be taskdef'd
in later in a build.
Conor
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org