Stefano Marsili wrote:
>
> Hi everybody,
> I'm really no Ant expert, but I'm working on a project
> that might be of interest to this thread.
> It defines an expression language that extends
> Ant's property expansion. At the moment the language
> is limited and is still subject to heavy cha
Hi,
For those on the Ant Mailing List, I'd be very interested if you could
arrange a 'questionnaire' on Ant usage.
Something along the lines of
How do you use scripting features in Ant?
- I don't use any procedural features in my Ant scripts
- I use AntContr
E. (Jeff) Care
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IBM WebSphere Application Server Development
WAS 7.0 Lead Release Engineer
"Kevin Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12/18/2006 09:01 AM
Please respond to
"Ant Developers List"
To
"Ant Developers List"
cc
Subject
JRake - r
http://martinfowler.com/bliki/JRake.html
As I mentioned earlier this year, I can see this kind of thing
becoming more popular
Kev
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all,
Having just got back from hols and getting up to speed on this, my
initial thoughts are -1 for including this in 1.7.0, given that we are
in the release candidate stage and Antoine wants to do the full
release in 9 days.
I know it's bad form to veto when I may not be 100% sure of all the
use of javax.scripting without
> having a negative impact on the current scripting code.
+1 on making the script manager configurable, +0 on supporting
javax.scripting in 1.7.0. And I'm in the
use-a-separate-attribute-instead-of-a-prefix camp.
Stefan
---
er will have configured up bsf,
and every thing works, then update to java6 and the
script tasks stop working.
This may be a 1.7.1 level change, if its done with a new attribute and
not a new language string.
Maybe, but I would still like it for 1.7.0.
This gives us a chance to look
other
aspects of scripting, to make it more useful.
-better fault handing
-better default values
-ways of passing params to conditions (and for reuse)
PS, script performance tests from the netkernel team:
http://www.mail-archive.com/jruby-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg01110.html
conclusion
Hello Peter, and others
I am thinking of building Ant 1.7.0 on Sunday, December 10. This
would mean a release date for the public of Sunday, December 17.
Would this fit with the work to add this scripting support ?
Concerning the contents of the scripting support, I trust you. :-)
Regards
Peter Reilly wrote:
If the attribute is not specified a default path will be used - all
the scriptapi's that ant known about. - bsf, jsr.
So why add the API attribute at all? Just do the right thing without
having to be told. Legacy scripts will expect to use BSF and they will
get it. New scr
the box)
> usage of a scripting language with ant on java6 and
> allow scripting with languages that only have javax.scripting
> engines (F3 for example - I think).
+1 to oob.
> I had proposed before to use the convention
> language="jsr:javascript" to denote the jaxax.sc
On 11/27/06, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As java6 will be released shortly (I think in december)
it would be nice to allow ant to use javax.scripting
for a script engine. I would allow oob (out of the box)
usage of a scripting language with ant on java6 and
allow scriptin
Peter Reilly wrote:
As java6 will be released shortly (I think in december)
it would be nice to allow ant to use javax.scripting
for a script engine. I would allow oob (out of the box)
usage of a scripting language with ant on java6 and
allow scripting with languages that only have
As java6 will be released shortly (I think in december)
it would be nice to allow ant to use javax.scripting
for a script engine. I would allow oob (out of the box)
usage of a scripting language with ant on java6 and
allow scripting with languages that only have javax.scripting
engines (F3 for
to keep them? I'd actually be
interested to know if it's simply because Java programmers are used to
braces?
Well, I wasn't involved at the time when many of these things were
set in concrete. One of the goals though was to be a scripting language
friendly to Java developers.
als
Kevin Jackson wrote:
On 9/16/06, Jesse Glick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
(I'd steer away from groovy before anyone suggests it ;))
Kevin, anything in particular you don't like about Groovy?
In my experience it is an excellent scripting language and
has excellent An
Kevin, anything in particular you don't like about Groovy?
Hi Paul,
Nice to 'chat' to you :)
My major problem with groovy was it's instability - every time I
looked at it previously, something was mentioned as still being
unstable etc.
def scanner = ant.fileScanner {
fileset(dir: propert
Kevin Jackson wrote:
On 9/16/06, Jesse Glick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
(I'd steer away from groovy before anyone suggests it ;))
Kevin, anything in particular you don't like about Groovy?
In my experience Groovy is an excellent scripting language
and has excellent An
obably would have been miserable as a
> teenager were it not for CLtLR2.
?
Common Lisp the Language Release 2 (I guess)
[snip]
demonstrates my biggest problem with using a scripting language
instead of something abstracted away from scripting (like our current
XML format). You start to use the
ke a fileset, but you have a path, not a fileset,
> and there is no root.
You certainly know that 1.7 can copy paths just as well.
> for (jar in classpath.split(':;')) {
> copy({file: jar, todir: destdir})
> }
demonstrates my biggest problem with using a scripting language
i
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/17/06, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > What about, if the members of ant-contrib were to agree to this,
>> > merge ant and ant-contrib to
Hi,
Is Stefan the author of ?
Antoine
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:01:32 +0100
Von: "Peter Reilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: "Ant Developers List"
Betreff: Re: suggestion : Ant 1.8 full dist to include a \'scripting lang\'
Hi everybody,
I'm really no Ant expert, but I'm working on a project
that might be of interest to this thread.
It defines an expression language that extends
Ant's property expansion. At the moment the language
is limited and is still subject to heavy changes
(I like to experiment and I'm still
On 9/17/06, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about, if the members of ant-contrib were to agree to this,
> merge ant and ant-contrib to have the ...
Has anybody ever asked them?
I think that the author of
of the least verbose languages (apart from the ())
Actually Lisp isn't much less verbose, macros are the key. And "real
macros" are what the other scripting languages I've looked into are
lacking.
Stefan
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about, if the members of ant-contrib were to agree to this,
> merge ant and ant-contrib to have the ...
Has anybody ever asked them?
Stefan
-
To unsub
using ant. Most of the build files of the individual
projects were generated, either using velocity and templates, or by a
java command line program using a macro language as its input.
Talking about a scripting language to "marry" with ant, I am surprised
no one mentioned groovy.
Rega
to people at the conference,
they mainly mentioned that maven was better as they didn't have to
think about getting started, whereas Ant provided much more
flexibility - in that vein, I think we should concentrate on Ant's
strengths:
- flexibility (add a scripting language would increase this
m your own. I too would like to have an official and easy to
use scripting language always available in Ant (and ECMAScript is a
good condidate), but as a way to extend the default Ant behavior or do
a one off thing for a given build, not to replace the current Ant.
What you describe (Ant in Jav
e. [...]
Whao, it's good you got that off your chest Jesse ;-)
Great post! I don't agree on all your points, but my experience is not
far from your own. I too would like to have an official and easy to
use scripting language always available in Ant (and ECMAScript is a
good condidate)
I was wondering if anyone would bring it up...
+1 (is >1 allowed?) for including a scripting language implementation in
the standard Ant distribution, so that we can rely on it being there. In
fact I would suggest making Ant 2.0 assume a script as its input, and
have a compatibility mode
Kevin Jackson wrote:
>> (project :name "Ant" :default "echo"
>> (target :name "echo"
>> (echo :message "Hello World")))
>>
>> Tasks would be functions or macros.
>
> Anyone interested in a CLISP version of Ant?
You'd be surprised how much less lines of code you'd need when
compared to the
eal macros and a time-tested "scripting" language for free.
and we could get rid of XML:
(project :name "Ant" :default "echo"
(target :name "echo"
(echo :message "Hello World")))
Tasks would be functions or macros.
...And make is an AI r
On 9/13/06, Kevin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to https://scripting.dev.java.net/
> SCSI (http://sisc.sourceforge.net/) a scheme implementation
> is supported by JDK6 scripting via an engine provided by
> https://scripting.dev.java.net/servlets/ProjectDocumen
The easiest thing would be a re-implementation of
> Ant in Common Lisp,
> > we'd get real macros and a time-tested "scripting"
> language for free.
> > and we could get rid of XML:
>
> +1 ;)
>
> s-expressions are basically a 'better' xml, but
According to https://scripting.dev.java.net/
SCSI (http://sisc.sourceforge.net/) a scheme implementation
is supported by JDK6 scripting via an engine provided by
https://scripting.dev.java.net/servlets/ProjectDocumentList
Cool, one more to look at
As a SideNote, does anyone know the state of
.sourceforge.net/) a scheme implementation
is supported by JDK6 scripting via an engine provided by
https://scripting.dev.java.net/servlets/ProjectDocumentList
As a SideNote, does anyone know the state of the apache BSF
project - it seems to have gone asleep. BSF is usefull for people
that do not use JDK6+ ;-()
>> (project :name "Ant" :default "echo"
>> (target :name "echo"
>> (echo :message "Hello World")))
>>
>> Tasks would be functions or macros.
>
> Anyone interested in a CLISP version of Ant?
You'd be surprised how much less lines of code you'd need when
compared to the Java version, really.
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Kevin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/13/06, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (project :name "Ant" :default "echo"
>> (target :name "echo"
>> (echo :message "Hello World")))
>>
>> Tasks
mplementation of Ant in Common Lisp,
we'd get real macros and a time-tested "scripting" language for free.
and we could get rid of XML:
+1 ;)
s-expressions are basically a 'better' xml, but implementing Ant in
Common Lisp would be:
a - cool
b - completely barmy (I doubt
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Jan Materne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh - Gump3 is over?
Let's call it dormant.
Large parts of Gump are stable, there isn't much need for active
development. Maven 2 is the most pressing problem and it would either
need (more) support by the Maven community or me sittin
cros and a time-tested "scripting" language for free.
and we could get rid of XML:
(project :name "Ant" :default "echo"
(target :name "echo"
(echo :message "Hello World")))
Tasks would be functions or macros.
Stefan
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Kevin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a data point it's important to note that the python re-write
> didn't attract more developers
I think that's because Gump still hasn't managed to prove it's not a
"those Java people" thing.
> - having said that if you wanted apac
> > Talking about flamebait, I'll toss this out there:
> we
> > could create our own scripting language... with
> > domain-specific slants if/where applicable... this
> > would extricate us from any distribution issues,
> and,
> > dare I say it, could be
--- Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Benson wrote:
>
> >
> > Talking about flamebait, I'll toss this out there:
> we
> > could create our own scripting language... with
> > domain-specific slants if/where applicable... this
> &g
Matt Benson wrote:
Talking about flamebait, I'll toss this out there: we
could create our own scripting language... with
domain-specific slants if/where applicable... this
would extricate us from any distribution issues, and,
dare I say it, could be fun if we could find ways to
make
t;
> > Biggest problem might be that the language needs
> to be license
> > compatible.
>
> Yes I can see this as a problem - sorry didn't
> consider it before.
>
Talking about flamebait, I'll toss this out there: we
could create our own scripting language...
;I'm not convinced that script languages are more appropriate 8-)
Me neither. IMHO its easier to do more complicated checks, e.g. if
attribute combination is ok eg.
with check*() methods.
But maybe I am not familiar enough with scripting
>> Downsides are of course that the implementa
e tool/lang
>
>I'm not convinced that script languages are more appropriate 8-)
Me neither. IMHO its easier to do more complicated checks, e.g. if
attribute combination is ok eg.
with check*() methods.
But maybe I am not familiar enough with scripting
>> Downsides are of cour
t attract developers from the non-Java parts of the ASF. The
result today is that the number of active developers has dropped from
about two to about zero.
If we chose a "standard" scripting language for Ant, it means the Ant
developer community must feel
y don't care about Gump
(Maven uses continuum for example). As a data point it's important to
note that the python re-write didn't attract more developers - having
said that if you wanted apache developers I would have thought perl
would have been the safer language (given mod_perl et
+1
I think we need a scriptdef library. Having a standard scripting language
would help too.
- Alexey.
On 9/11/06, Kevin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
Coming in too work today I was thinking about how although scriptdef
is a very handy way of quickly specifying tasks w
Hi all,
Coming in too work today I was thinking about how although scriptdef
is a very handy way of quickly specifying tasks without having to
compile code, and how it can be used within an antlib, but that no-one
at apachecon asia had used it.
The reasons they gave was:
1 - didn't know about it
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Alexey Solofnenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> About property expansion - many languages use the same syntax for
>>> inline property substitution. It may be good not to expand
>>> pro
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Alexey Solofnenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
About property expansion - many languages use the same syntax for
inline property substitution. It may be good not to expand
properties automatically.
That's the reason it hasn't been implemented, exactly.
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Alexey Solofnenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> About property expansion - many languages use the same syntax for
> inline property substitution. It may be good not to expand
> properties automatically.
That's the reason it hasn't been implemented, exactly. Just imagine a
scr
About property expansion - many languages use the same syntax for inline
property substitution. It may be good not to expand properties
automatically.
- Alexey.
On 6/23/06, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Having been doing some work documenting scripting recently, I want t
Having been doing some work documenting scripting recently, I want to
note some current limitations with ant's script support.
-no automatic check for attributes/elements declared. The script code
needs to do that themselves, which leads to...
-bad handling of BuildExceptions rais
Costin Manolache wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not only . You can do the same (storing) with
Exactly, the patent descibes the contents of the ant "script" manual
page:
http://ant.apache.org/manual/OptionalTasks/script.html
Peter
And on [1] you ca
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not only . You can do the same (storing) with
]]>
Exactly, the patent descibes the contents of the ant "script"
manual page:
http://ant.apache.org/manual/OptionalTasks/script.html
Peter
And on [1] you can see, that´s
all sitting on the same file separated by XML tags
and being able to call each separate script in the
collection from a menu.
So, it sound not like a pattent on scripting, but on
how to store collections of scripts in one file and being
able to execute them.
Any pattent layer around?
I do know
> But is not a collection of scripts.
> is a collection of tasks in Java.
> That is what ANT provides, not scripts.
Correct. The right equivalent is .
But can (nearly) be rewritten with
a containing only one
But is not a collection of scripts.
is a collection of tasks in Java.
That is what ANT provides, not scripts.
In the worst case scenario, we are talking
about wether the
> >
> >
> >
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: Antoine Lévy-Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 3:14 PM
> >>To: Ant Developers List
> >>Subject: Re: Microsoft XML scripting patent
> >>
>
er
Does the ASF have a layer to check that?
Jan
-Original Message-
From: Antoine Lévy-Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 3:14 PM
To: Ant Developers List
Subject: Re: Microsoft XML scripting patent
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, it sound not like a pattent
14 PM
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: Re: Microsoft XML scripting patent
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>So, it sound not like a pattent on scripting, but on
> >>how to store collections of scripts in one file and being
> >>able to execute them
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, it sound not like a pattent on scripting, but on
how to store collections of scripts in one file and being
able to execute them.
as collection of scripts?
Jan
The example provided on the web page showing MS's patent show an xml
file containing a .bat
> So, it sound not like a pattent on scripting, but on
> how to store collections of scripts in one file and being
> able to execute them.
as collection of scripts?
Jan
>
> Any pattent layer around?
>
> Jose Alberto
>
> > -Original Message-
> >
separated by XML tags
and being able to call each separate script in the
collection from a menu.
So, it sound not like a pattent on scripting, but on
how to store collections of scripts in one file and being
able to execute them.
Any pattent layer around?
Jose Alberto
> -Original Mess
XML scripting patent
I haven't had a chance to do more than skim the news.com article on
Microsoft's recently granted patent on the use of XML to hold scripting
content...
http://news.com.com/2100-7345-5158432.html
... but does anyone else think this poses a problem for
Sorry... forgot to send a complete script! Here is one I ran from my machine...
ant = Ant()
ant.echo(message="hello world")
ant.delete(quiet="1", dir="D:\\java\\jython_ant\\temp")
ant.mkdir(dir="D:\\java\\jython_ant\\temp")
ant.touch(file="D:\\java\\jython_ant\\src\\HelloJython.java")
ant.copy(fil
Sorry... forgot to send a complete script! Here is one I ran from my machine...
ant = Ant()
ant.echo(message="hello world")
ant.delete(quiet="1", dir="D:\\java\\jython_ant\\temp")
ant.mkdir(dir="D:\\java\\jython_ant\\temp")
ant.touch(file="D:\\java\\jython_ant\\src\\HelloJython.java")
ant.copy(fil
All-
First off, Special thanks to Peter Reilly for his last post. Im still
relatively new to Jython (and Ant dev for that matter!) so his last code
snippet got me thinking in the right direction about the extreme reflection in
Jython!
Allright. So I took Peter's code and tried to mimic the Ant Ma
r a in args.keys():
> > > setattr( t, a, args[a] )
> > > which turns your wrapper calls into:
> > >
> > > twrapper('echo', message='hello world')
> > > twrapper('delete', quiet=1, dir=File('todir
gt; twrapper('copy', file=File("fromfile"), todir=File("todir"))
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 4:59 AM
> > > To: Ant Developers
If anyone's curious, I've recently posted some code at sourceforge for a
project called Pynt. It's a java-based scripting language designed for
running builds, and it integrates fairly well with ant tasks. The code is
in pretty rough shape, as I've been sort of "thin
ete', quiet=1, dir=File('todir'))
> twrapper('mkdir', dir=File("todir"))
> twrapper('copy', file=File("fromfile"), todir=File("todir"))
>
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL
.
It is a tradeoff.
I'm curious about this tradeoff and about the "XML Burden" you mention in
your blog. Is the issue using XML or is it better access to scripting
facilities within Ant?
The reason I ask is that Jelly already provides an XML scripting language
that can run Ant tas
ile("todir"))
twrapper('copy', file=File("fromfile"), todir=File("todir"))
> -Original Message-
> From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 4:59 AM
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: Re: Ant scripting f
On Thursday, Jun 12, 2003, at 22:23 US/Pacific, Conor MacNeill wrote:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ant-dev&m=105516662409107&w=2
Instead of the "script driving Ant tasks" approach, is
more like a
script within a task. As such, the scripts would potentially be more
focussed
on the things that
pection
> facilities. One problem is that most Ant tasks support a multitude of
> attributes. As I said above, XML is quite nice there as it allows
> attributes to be named. You only provide the attributes you want and mostly
> everything else takes sensible defaults. In the copy example, th
butes to be named. You only
provide the attributes you want and mostly everything else takes sensible
defaults. In the copy example, think about what the wrapper would look like
that exposes all the capabilities of
(http://ant.apache.org/manual/CoreTasks/copy.html). I think it could be quite
while it's worthwhile to look at using a
first class scripting language to actually build real "build-scripts".
Of course, I haven't moved anywhere with it because I've been having
way too much fun over with Mac OS X and Cocoa lately. :) Lack of itch
to scratch leads to
Hello all,
Ive been working alot with the idea of scripting languages and how they fit
into the community (especially Java scripting languages). I started to look at
when XML is misused and when something like Jython might be a better idea. The
end result was an article on the new java.net site
84 matches
Mail list logo
