Ant2

[cm...@yahoo.com]

I don't know if you follow ant-dev, but there are some discussions about
the new version of ant which are extremely scarry for me.

Things like throwing exceptions when a property is not defined,
changing the build.xml syntax, and so on.

Maybe I'm crazy, but so far I did a lot of the build.xml changes every
time a new ant was released, with all the pain of trying (without
success ) to make it work with the old version and the new one. I suppose
Remy and Craig know what I'm talking about. Given that we use ant for
testing, and we already have a lot of ant files - please at least follow
the discussions, it'll affect us as well. I don't have the time or energy
to try to convince Peter and the others pushing for those changes...


Costin


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: Ant2

[Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>]

> On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote:
>
> > If we don't like Ant 2, why would we have to use it ? If it introduces
big
> > changes in build.xml, why upgrade when Ant 1 works fine ?
>
> Sooner or later ant2 will be released and people will start using it in
> some projects - we can stick with ant1.4 if we want, but other projects
> will use ant1.5, some may stick with ant1.3 - it'll be a nightmare to
> build any collection of projects.
> And gump can't do too much - if you make build.xml work with ant2 it'll no
> longer work with ant1.4, same for the reverse.
>
>
> The problem is that the differences between 1.3 - 1.4 - 1.5 that caused us
> a lot of trouble are nothing compared with what seems to be happening in
> ant2. It would be much better getting ant2 to be (reasonably) backward
> compatible in the DTD than sticking with ant1.4.

I'm subscribed to ant-dev now to try to follow what's going on.
I really DO hope it'll end up being compatible with either 1.4 or 1.5.
They'll definitely hear me complain if that's not the case (although I guess
they probably won't care).

> P.S. I can volunteer to write the Makefiles, since soon this may be the
> cleanest way to build tomcat...

Lol. I hope it won't end up being true, so I'll take it as a joke (for now)
:)

Remy


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: Ant2

[co...@covalent.net]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote:

> > Maybe I'm crazy, but so far I did a lot of the build.xml changes every
> > time a new ant was released, with all the pain of trying (without
>
> 1.5 deprecates more attrbutes, BTW (don't know if you tried building Tomcat
> with it).

I'll try. The attribute deprecation between 1.3 and 1.4 was IMHO completey
unjustified, and if 1.5 does the same we'll have the same problem once
again.

> If we don't like Ant 2, why would we have to use it ? If it introduces big
> changes in build.xml, why upgrade when Ant 1 works fine ?

Sooner or later ant2 will be released and people will start using it in
some projects - we can stick with ant1.4 if we want, but other projects
will use ant1.5, some may stick with ant1.3 - it'll be a nightmare to
build any collection of projects.
And gump can't do too much - if you make build.xml work with ant2 it'll no
longer work with ant1.4, same for the reverse.


The problem is that the differences between 1.3 - 1.4 - 1.5 that caused us
a lot of trouble are nothing compared with what seems to be happening in
ant2. It would be much better getting ant2 to be (reasonably) backward
compatible in the DTD than sticking with ant1.4.


Costin
P.S. I can volunteer to write the Makefiles, since soon this may be the
cleanest way to build tomcat...



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: Ant2

[Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>]

> I don't know if you follow ant-dev,

Nope.

> but there are some discussions about
> the new version of ant which are extremely scarry for me.
>
> Things like throwing exceptions when a property is not defined,
> changing the build.xml syntax, and so on.
>
> Maybe I'm crazy, but so far I did a lot of the build.xml changes every
> time a new ant was released, with all the pain of trying (without

1.5 deprecates more attrbutes, BTW (don't know if you tried building Tomcat
with it).

> success ) to make it work with the old version and the new one. I suppose
> Remy and Craig know what I'm talking about. Given that we use ant for
> testing, and we already have a lot of ant files - please at least follow
> the discussions, it'll affect us as well. I don't have the time or energy
> to try to convince Peter and the others pushing for those changes...

If we don't like Ant 2, why would we have to use it ? If it introduces big
changes in build.xml, why upgrade when Ant 1 works fine ?

Remy


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: Ant2

[Bojan Smojver <bo...@binarix.com>]

cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:


> Maybe I'm crazy, but so far I did a lot of the build.xml changes every
> time a new ant was released, with all the pain of trying (without
> success ) to make it work with the old version and the new one.


Maybe we should somehow motivate Ant people to write a conversion 
utility that reformats Ant 1.4 build files into Ant 2.0 build files. If 
that's possible, of course...

Bojan


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: Ant2

[Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>]

cmanolache@yahoo.com <cm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I don't know if you follow ant-dev, but there are some discussions about
> the new version of ant which are extremely scarry for me.
> 
> Things like throwing exceptions when a property is not defined,
> changing the build.xml syntax, and so on.
> 
> Maybe I'm crazy, but so far I did a lot of the build.xml changes every
> time a new ant was released, with all the pain of trying (without
> success ) to make it work with the old version and the new one. I suppose
> Remy and Craig know what I'm talking about. Given that we use ant for
> testing, and we already have a lot of ant files - please at least follow
> the discussions, it'll affect us as well. I don't have the time or energy
> to try to convince Peter and the others pushing for those changes...

We walked down that path... James saw it, predicted it, and was kicked badly
for that... And now he's proven right... Bah...

    Pier


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>