2008/4/30 Ittay Dror <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I've read this thread and would like to maybe try and take this discussion > elsewhere. > > The way I see it is that Ant and Maven came to being in order to simplify > building projects. The philosophy (as I see it) was either "create an xml > file with a few lines calling some tasks" or "create an xml with a short > configuration". Along the way, it became apparent that building a project > involves a lot of logic and thus these two frameworks grew until now they > are both not simple to use. > > The root of this is, I think, because while dealing with all this build > logic, both frameworks refused to embrace the principals behind OOP. Both > obviously need a backing language to actually do things and have chosen > Java, but the front end is not OO. > > And now this discussion seem to try to invent new ways of accomplishing > logic by creating a 'before' attribute or macro redefinition etc. Why? > > Now, creating a full blown OO language in XML will also defy the 'easy' > purpose, mainly because XML was not designed to be a language (verbose > syntax, no debugger, etc.). > > But what about prototype oriented syntax? The benefit is that there's no > introduction of 'class' concept, modifying objects is easy. > > General idea is that the framework defines objects (mainly containers of > methods == tasks). Then the user creates his own object (data), and defines > the prototype of that object to be one of the frameworks, thus getting all > functionality. If he wants, he can override whatever methods he wants. > Having an object that encapsulates methods allows creating helper methods > which can easily be overridden , without complexity. > > So something like: > > <sourcePath>/path/to/source/files</sourcePath> > > > <main>object.compile</main> > > where 'jar_project' is defined by the framework (more like a toolkit) and > contains methods like 'compile', 'clean', etc. It can also have > 'create_eclipse_project' method based on the data passed to it. > > I hope I was clear enough. > > Ittay > > Oh, one more thing, with all this logic around, there really should be a > better way of debugging than 'echo'. Maybe the framework can convert the XML > code to some language for easy debugging? > >
You should maybe have a look to buildr. -- Gilles Scokart --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
