On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stefan Bodewig wrote, On 22/04/2003 12.40: >> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >>>Versioning, >> Has to be part of <antlib> anyway. > > And that is why I suggested this. Why reimplement something that is > already there and has been proposed to be donated to Ant?
Errm. <antlib> will have to look into the library descriptor (manifest file whatever) and see whether the antlib version requested by the user is compatible with the one installed. That's all, and it doesn't sound like a big "reimplementation" of anything. And it is absolutely <antlib> specific as - at least I - am not thinking of file naming conventions or something. I must be missing something. > I don't get it. Do <uptodate> and <get> download to a centralized > repository? If I tell <get> where to put it, sure. BTW, I managed to overlook <get>'s usetimestamp attribute. Drop <uptodate>. > Do they use other mechanisms other than http? No, but neither does my firewall. And I seem to remember you proposed a Ruper light that only supported http a few mails ago. 8-) > Are they integrated in antlib? How so - antlib doesn't exist. > DO they enable the usage of a moniker to get the antlib instead of a > full URL? antlib doesn't need that. autodownload may need it. Put the download URL into the library descriptor for libraries that want to support the feature. > The repository and metadata are *not* fixed. > They should change as needed by Apache and Ant, so proposals in this > sense are welcome. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] I knew that, but quite bluntly, repositories are not my itch, so I don't scratch them. I never felt the need to put jars into CVS and I prefer to click through licenses to know what's on my disk. No, I'm probably not normal. > Why is Ant included in many CVS modules? Because the people who put them there didn't trust their developers to pick it up themselves. Or feared they might lose a valuable contributor to the complex installation process of Ant. > Because it does not have a standard and easy way of getting jars. Honestly, we shouldn't follow this thread of discussion any further, it won't lead anywhere as I'm obviously at a radically different end when it comes to developer-friendlines than you. If installing Ant's binary distribution is considered non-standard or not easy (for a Java developer), then I really must have gotten old. Stefan
