[SUBMIT]: ant tasks for c#/.net

[Steve Loughran <st...@iseran.com>]

I've done a fair revision of that first post of a C# compile task I posted
last week.So ignore that one completely.

Changes
-moved to a new package: org.apache.tools.ant.taskdefs.optional.net;
-expanded the C# class slightly (CSharp.java)
-teased half the code out into a NetCommand class which aggregates an
Execute with a Commandline
-added an assembler for IL (Ilasm.java)
-added a skinny covering note and detailed task documentation -the latter
comes from the
javadoc of the file though it can be move.

I know some people have strong feelings about C# and the .net program, and I
understand why. But it looks like I will soon be developing for both
'universal platforms for the internet' and it would be nice have a unified
build tool. Plus if the CLR runtime and .net build tools ever go cross
platform, ant will be ready.

-Steve

Re: [SUBMIT]: ant tasks for c#/.net

[Steve Loughran <st...@iseran.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Bodewig" <bo...@bost.de>
To: <an...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 05:21
Subject: Re: [SUBMIT]: ant tasks for c#/.net


> >>>>> "SL" == Steve Loughran <st...@iseran.com> writes:
>
>  SL> Changes
>
>  SL> -moved to a new package: org.apache.tools.ant.taskdefs.optional.net
>
> Steve, any problems with making that
>
> org.apache.tools.ant.taskdefs.optional.dotnet

will do.

I am still testing the code and trying to decide how best to sort out a
library import model that contains the worst of both worlds -explicit naming
of libraries to import and the implicit search for these libraries along the
PATH directory list. This is like classpath confusion raised to a whole new
level.

There is also a very tentative plan for an nunit task built as a subclass of
the junit task.

-Steve

Re: [SUBMIT]: ant tasks for c#/.net

[James Duncan Davidson <du...@x180.com>]

On 11/6/00 5:21 AM, "Stefan Bodewig" <bo...@bost.de> wrote:
 
> Does anybody here have problems with an optional task that allows C#
> compilation?
> 
> I don't see a problem, we could have <cc> or <f90> or whatever IMHO.

As optional, no. I don't see a problem. <cobal> would be fine by me as an
optional. :)

-- 
James Duncan Davidson                                        duncan@x180.com
                                                                  !try; do()

Re: [SUBMIT]: ant tasks for c#/.net

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

>>>>> "SL" == Steve Loughran <st...@iseran.com> writes:

 SL> Changes 

 SL> -moved to a new package: org.apache.tools.ant.taskdefs.optional.net

Steve, any problems with making that

org.apache.tools.ant.taskdefs.optional.dotnet

?

A package named *.net usually implies something related to networking
in Java (I'd see the rough telnet task there for example). If it's OK
for you I'm going to change the files and commit it in .dotnet.

 SL> I know some people have strong feelings about C# and the .net
 SL> program, and I understand why.

Does anybody here have problems with an optional task that allows C#
compilation?

I don't see a problem, we could have <cc> or <f90> or whatever IMHO.

Stefan