Release?

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@bost.de>]

Hi,

are we ready for a release or is there still something missing that
really must be included?

I'd propose to call it *1.1* since many people refer to the version
that shipped with Tomcat 3.1 as Ant 1.0.8 - so 1.0 might be
misleading.

How are we going about to put the release together? Tag all sources,
change the version property in build.xml and the version text in
docs/index.html - that's clear but what else?

I noticed that a bootstraped version built with JDK 1.1 one run on 1.2
(both Blackdown's latest versions for Linux) - message is

java.lang.VerifyError: (class: org/apache/tools/ant/ProjectHelper$TaskHandler, method: init signature: (Ljava/lang/String;Lorg/xml/sax/AttributeList;)V) Illegal use of nonvirtual function call

while it works the other way around so the release should probably be
compiled using 1.2 (or later?).

How about the optional tasks? Are we going to distribute a version
with all optional tasks compiled in - did the version that shipped
with Tomcat include script?

And finally, who's going to do it? Sam, as you know where to put the
stuff and probably have the right permissions to do so?

Stefan

AW: Suggestions for ANT release

[Wolfgang Werner <ww...@picturesafe.de>]

> >>>>> "WW" == Wolfgang Werner <ww...@picturesafe.de> writes:
> 
>  WW> 1.) Is it possible to include the jaxp.jar and parser.jar in the
>  WW> source distribution?
> 
> Huh? Both are inside the lib directory - I've just now logged in to
> the machine and double checked all three archives.
> 

Sorry, my fault...  :^)

Wolfgang

Re: Suggestions for ANT release

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@bost.de>]

>>>>> "WW" == Wolfgang Werner <ww...@picturesafe.de> writes:

 WW> 1.) Is it possible to include the jaxp.jar and parser.jar in the
 WW> source distribution?

Huh? Both are inside the lib directory - I've just now logged in to
the machine and double checked all three archives.

 WW> 3.) To less documentation for XSL - task

Should probably be "not enough documentation at all" 8^). I would have
really loved to see documentation on the EJB tasks but wanted to get
this out of the door fast.

My main concern was that we needed a release to give other projects
something to rely on while we can now go on and break older
functionality as/if needed.

Stefan

Suggestions for ANT release

[Wolfgang Werner <ww...@picturesafe.de>]

Hi all, 

I tested Stefan's distribution. Found nearly no 
points, only: 

1.)	Is it possible to include the jaxp.jar and 
	parser.jar in the source distribution?
2.) 	In the documentation, the procedere for logging
	in xml format and displaying this file via xslt
	should be explained more explicit

3.)	To less documentation for XSL - task

Good work!

Thanxs, Wolfgang

Re: Release?

[Vitaly Stulsky <vi...@yahoo.com>]

> 
>  VS> And what do you think about installer with upgarade and new tasks
>  VS> searching?
> 
> You've not been talking about _this_ release I hope 8^).

Of course, no. This was some kind of loud thinking.

> Other than that, go for it if you want - this won't have a high
> priority for me so I will focus on other things first.

Okay, may be it will be useful...

Vitaly

Re: Release?

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@bost.de>]

>>>>> "VS" == Vitaly Stulsky <vi...@yahoo.com> writes:

 VS> And what do you think about installer with upgarade and new tasks
 VS> searching?

You've not been talking about _this_ release I hope 8^).

Other than that, go for it if you want - this won't have a high
priority for me so I will focus on other things first.

Stefan

RE: Release?

[Ken Liu <kl...@auctionlogic.com>]

That's a good point.  Perhaps for now the optional packages could be
supplied in a separate jar, but still included as part of the "release".

Ken


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vitaly Stulsky [mailto:vitaly_stulsky@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 11:27 AM
> To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Release?

<snip>


>
> > How about the optional tasks? Are we going to distribute a version
> > with all optional tasks compiled in - did the version that shipped
> > with Tomcat include script?
>
> I do not want to see optional tasks in distribution cause it may starts
> new bad habbit to distribute a huge bundle of additional stuff with the
> core.

Re: Release?

[Vitaly Stulsky <vi...@yahoo.com>]

Hello,


> are we ready for a release or is there still something missing that
> really must be included?

My opinion - to release ANT will be huge step forward.

> I'd propose to call it *1.1* since many people refer to the version
> that shipped with Tomcat 3.1 as Ant 1.0.8 - so 1.0 might be
> misleading.

Agreed. 1.1 sounds very good and also may be it will be good to mark
builds of this version.

> while it works the other way around so the release should probably be
> compiled using 1.2 (or later?).

1.3 will be good.

> How about the optional tasks? Are we going to distribute a version
> with all optional tasks compiled in - did the version that shipped
> with Tomcat include script?

I do not want to see optional tasks in distribution cause it may starts
new bad habbit to distribute a huge bundle of additional stuff with the
core.
I beleive that better solution is to allow user to download and setup them
manualy. And what do you think about installer with upgarade and new
tasks searching? It maybe simple Swing tool with ability to find and
download updates and new inforamtion from the ANT web site, as well
as provide simple configuring abilities. This tool could push forward
optional tasks development process standartization (physical location,
installation on client machine, optional task description and
documentation).
If anyone has thoughts about this - let me know.

Vitaly

RE: Release?

[Ken Liu <kl...@auctionlogic.com>]

I would rather not have a build with 1.3, unless it will be backwards
compatible to run using 1.2.  It also would be nice to see the optional
tasks built in the release.

Thanks.

Ken

> while it works the other way around so the release should probably be
> compiled using 1.2 (or later?).
>
> How about the optional tasks? Are we going to distribute a version
> with all optional tasks compiled in - did the version that shipped
> with Tomcat include script?

Re: Release?

[Jimmy Sieben <ji...@utdallas.edu>]

At 04:20 AM 7/17/2000, you wrote:
>I'd propose to call it *1.1* since many people refer to the version
>that shipped with Tomcat 3.1 as Ant 1.0.8 - so 1.0 might be
>misleading.

1.1 sounds OK to me, eliminates any confusion and whatnot.



>How about the optional tasks? Are we going to distribute a version
>with all optional tasks compiled in - did the version that shipped
>with Tomcat include script?

I think the optional tasks should be supplied, but with a note that there 
will eventually be taskjars to allow dynamic inclusion of tasks. However, 
we have some very cool functionality built with the optional tasks 
(<script> especially) and I'd hate to see some of it left out.
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
| Jimmy Sieben <> jimmys@utdallas.edu <> EvlG@IRC <> Young Game Designer |
| ICQ UIN: 650255 <> Most things suck, thats what makes some things rock |
| Homepage: http://www.utdallas.edu/~jimmys/                             |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+

RE: Release?

[William Ferguson <wi...@mincom.com>]

I'm inclined to think that the binary distribution should contain 2
parts.
The first is the Ant core and the 2nd is any optional tasks.

William Ferguson

This transmission is for the intended addressee only and is confidential
information. If you have received this transmission in error, please
delete it and notify the sender. The contents of this E-mail are the
opinion of the writer only and are not endorsed by Mincom Limited unless
expressly stated otherwise.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Conor MacNeill [mailto:conor@m64.com]
> Sent: Monday, 17 July 2000 21:29
> To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Release?
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > are we ready for a release or is there still something missing that
> > really must be included?
>
> Lets go for it. I think any version of ant we release now
> will be a huge
> update to the version released with Tomcat and that is what a
> lot of people
> seem to have been using.
>
> > I'd propose to call it *1.1* since many people refer to the version
> > that shipped with Tomcat 3.1 as Ant 1.0.8 - so 1.0 might be
> > misleading.
>
> Agreed. I don't know where 1.08 came from :-).
>
> >
> > How are we going about to put the release together? Tag all sources,
> > change the version property in build.xml and the version text in
> > docs/index.html - that's clear but what else?
>
> Perhaps we should be using a replace or Keysubst on these files in the
> build.xml.
>
> >
> > I noticed that a bootstraped version built with JDK 1.1 one
> run on 1.2
> > (both Blackdown's latest versions for Linux) - message is
> >
> > java.lang.VerifyError: (class:
> > org/apache/tools/ant/ProjectHelper$TaskHandler, method: init
> > signature: (Ljava/lang/String;Lorg/xml/sax/AttributeList;)V)
> > Illegal use of nonvirtual function call
>
> Same thing with Sun JDKs on NT.
>
> >
> > while it works the other way around so the release should
> probably be
> > compiled using 1.2 (or later?).
>
> I would be happy to build with 1.3
>
> >
> > How about the optional tasks? Are we going to distribute a version
> > with all optional tasks compiled in - did the version that shipped
> > with Tomcat include script?
>
> I think we should not include optional tasks in the binary
> distribution. In
> the future we should be able to have task jars or taskset
> jars. We could
> then provide some of these, such as the script task as an installable
> component, with the binary distribution. For now lets stick
> to the core.
>

RE: Release?

[Conor MacNeill <co...@m64.com>]

> Hi,
>
> are we ready for a release or is there still something missing that
> really must be included?

Lets go for it. I think any version of ant we release now will be a huge
update to the version released with Tomcat and that is what a lot of people
seem to have been using.

> I'd propose to call it *1.1* since many people refer to the version
> that shipped with Tomcat 3.1 as Ant 1.0.8 - so 1.0 might be
> misleading.

Agreed. I don't know where 1.08 came from :-).

>
> How are we going about to put the release together? Tag all sources,
> change the version property in build.xml and the version text in
> docs/index.html - that's clear but what else?

Perhaps we should be using a replace or Keysubst on these files in the
build.xml.

>
> I noticed that a bootstraped version built with JDK 1.1 one run on 1.2
> (both Blackdown's latest versions for Linux) - message is
>
> java.lang.VerifyError: (class:
> org/apache/tools/ant/ProjectHelper$TaskHandler, method: init
> signature: (Ljava/lang/String;Lorg/xml/sax/AttributeList;)V)
> Illegal use of nonvirtual function call

Same thing with Sun JDKs on NT.

>
> while it works the other way around so the release should probably be
> compiled using 1.2 (or later?).

I would be happy to build with 1.3

>
> How about the optional tasks? Are we going to distribute a version
> with all optional tasks compiled in - did the version that shipped
> with Tomcat include script?

I think we should not include optional tasks in the binary distribution. In
the future we should be able to have task jars or taskset jars. We could
then provide some of these, such as the script task as an installable
component, with the binary distribution. For now lets stick to the core.