You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cxf.apache.org by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> on 2008/04/08 12:57:11 UTC
[DISCUSS] To Ant or not to Ant
Please read Glen Mazza's remarks on CXF-1509 and pipe up. Glen makes a case
for throwing away the ant tasks instead of cleaning up and documenting them,
which is what I started. If the consensus is with Glen, I think that we
should delete them and stick with the use of <java> in the doc.
Re: [DISCUSS] To Ant or not to Ant
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
It's the 'if' I'm trying to solicit commentary on. I agree with your
statement.
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Johnson, Eric <Er...@iona.com> wrote:
> If CXF is going to supply Ant tasks, it should make them complete and
> document them.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tue 4/8/2008 6:57 AM
> To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] To Ant or not to Ant
>
> Please read Glen Mazza's remarks on CXF-1509 and pipe up. Glen makes a
> case
> for throwing away the ant tasks instead of cleaning up and documenting
> them,
> which is what I started. If the consensus is with Glen, I think that we
> should delete them and stick with the use of <java> in the doc.
>
>
RE: [DISCUSS] To Ant or not to Ant
Posted by "Johnson, Eric" <Er...@iona.com>.
If CXF is going to supply Ant tasks, it should make them complete and document them.
-----Original Message-----
From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
Sent: Tue 4/8/2008 6:57 AM
To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [DISCUSS] To Ant or not to Ant
Please read Glen Mazza's remarks on CXF-1509 and pipe up. Glen makes a case
for throwing away the ant tasks instead of cleaning up and documenting them,
which is what I started. If the consensus is with Glen, I think that we
should delete them and stick with the use of <java> in the doc.
Re: [DISCUSS] To Ant or not to Ant
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@verizon.net>.
Actually, never mind. I just linked back from the Ant Tasks page to
each of the three tools' pages--this way the Ant Task information does
not need to be duplicated each time for each of the tools.
Glen
Am Mittwoch, den 09.04.2008, 21:38 -0400 schrieb Glen Mazza:
> We can make it more convenient. I'm not too keen on us maintaining
> these tasks but if you really wish to retain them, I think it would be
> better to incorporate the "Ant tasks" page[1] into the specific
> pages--wsdl2java and java2ws--that these Ant tasks are related to.
> Keeping them split out onto a separate page is not very helpful for
> users, because it forces them to go back and forth to understand all the
> options.
>
> Regards,
> Glen
>
> [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/CXF20DOC/tools.html
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 09.04.2008, 16:25 -0400 schrieb Benson Margulies:
> > See my new Confluence. I've documented the 'antlib' trick that completely
> > hides the class names.
> >
> > This is an argument that things were OK the way they were: simple ant tasks
> > like the RI, doc explaining how to use the full classes for all the options.
> > That might be judged too convenient.
Re: [DISCUSS] To Ant or not to Ant
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@verizon.net>.
We can make it more convenient. I'm not too keen on us maintaining
these tasks but if you really wish to retain them, I think it would be
better to incorporate the "Ant tasks" page[1] into the specific
pages--wsdl2java and java2ws--that these Ant tasks are related to.
Keeping them split out onto a separate page is not very helpful for
users, because it forces them to go back and forth to understand all the
options.
Regards,
Glen
[1] http://cwiki.apache.org/CXF20DOC/tools.html
Am Mittwoch, den 09.04.2008, 16:25 -0400 schrieb Benson Margulies:
> See my new Confluence. I've documented the 'antlib' trick that completely
> hides the class names.
>
> This is an argument that things were OK the way they were: simple ant tasks
> like the RI, doc explaining how to use the full classes for all the options.
> That might be judged too convenient.
Re: [DISCUSS] To Ant or not to Ant
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
See my new Confluence. I've documented the 'antlib' trick that completely
hides the class names.
This is an argument that things were OK the way they were: simple ant tasks
like the RI, doc explaining how to use the full classes for all the options.
That might be judged too convenient.
Re: [DISCUSS] To Ant or not to Ant
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Tuesday 08 April 2008, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Please read Glen Mazza's remarks on CXF-1509 and pipe up. Glen makes a
> case for throwing away the ant tasks instead of cleaning up and
> documenting them, which is what I started. If the consensus is with
> Glen, I think that we should delete them and stick with the use of
> <java> in the doc.
The ONLY benefit that pops to mind is to make it easier to migrate folks
from the JAX-WS RI to CXF. The JAX-WS ri provides some ant tasks and I
believe ours use pretty much the exact same attributes and such so
switching out the ant tasks to the CXF version should be easy.
Wouldn't need to figure out the command line stuff.
Also, there is the minor issue of knowing the exact CXF class that needs
to be called, although they may need to know the exact class name of the
ant task to register it anyway.
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer, IONA
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: [DISCUSS] To Ant or not to Ant
Posted by Peter Jones <pe...@iona.com>.
Hi there,
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 06:57:11AM -0400, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Please read Glen Mazza's remarks on CXF-1509 and pipe up. Glen makes a case
> for throwing away the ant tasks instead of cleaning up and documenting them,
> which is what I started. If the consensus is with Glen, I think that we
> should delete them and stick with the use of <java> in the doc.
I'd tend to agree with Glen. I can't really think of any benefit of having
the ant tasks over just launching WSDLToJava with a java ant task. If there
is anything I'm not thinking of, definitely point it out! :)
Cheers,
Peter
--
Peter Jones
IONA Technologies
E-Mail: mailto:peter.jones@iona.com
Tel: 709-738-3725 x321 | Fax: 709-738-3745
570 Newfoundland Drive, St. John's, NL, Canada A1A 5B1