From: Andy G. <and...@us...> - 2003-05-21 03:50:00
|
> Isn't much of the JBoss-specific functionality in > XDoclet written by the JBG (David Jencks in > particular)? And doesn't that ultimately end up back > in the main XDoclet project? Absolutely, can't argue with you there ... except to say that XDoclet is, for the user, just a bunch of taskdefs (OK, recent developments like xjavadoc take it outside that, but my argument's still valid). > If Ant needs to be > enhanced in order to support a project like JBoss, > don't we think the Ant developers and maintainers > would appreciated the added functionality? > I dont' mean to be an Ant bigot, and I have nothing > other than my own lack of knowledge against BM, to be > honest. FWIW, I consider myself a bit of an Ant bigot too :) Big XDoclet fan aswell. > But Ant is by now the "standard" Java build tool. It > makes more sense to me to leverage that by > contributing features & capabilities to Ant, and to > let someone else (Ant maintainers) worry about crap > like regressions, etc than to have JBoss developers > worry about things other than the preload cache, JBoss > regressions etc, get my drift? Yup, get your drift, think you might have misunderstood mine. I think Ant (plus optional extras) is the way to go ... I'm also not sure that "fixing" Ant is necessarily that easy, witness the recent lengthy discussions on the XDoclet dev list about changing to an Apache hosted project. Not all projects run the same way. The essence, if you like, of Ant, is summed up in their documentation ... Overview of Ant Tasks Core Tasks Optional Tasks ... |