3 messages in org.apache.ant.devRe: Updating myrmidon?| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Peter Donald | Jan 20, 2001 6:35 pm | |
| Sam Ruby | Jan 20, 2001 7:37 pm | |
| Craig R. McClanahan | Jan 22, 2001 9:21 am |
| Subject: | Re: Updating myrmidon? | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Craig R. McClanahan (Crai...@eng.sun.com) | |
| Date: | Jan 22, 2001 9:21:10 am | |
| List: | org.apache.ant.dev | |
Sam Ruby wrote:
Peter Donald wrote:
The main thing I have to do is change packages from org.apache.ant to org.apache.myrmidon, right?
Personally, I would like to see the successor of the Ant 1.x series to be called.... Ant 2.x. Myrmidon is still a candidate for replacing Ant, right?
I agree ... the fact that myrmidon (and the other proposals) are in specific proposal subdirectories would seem to be clear enough identification that this is a "revolution" proposal.
It is hard to generalize from Catalina. That codebase was originally called Tomcat.Next, but at the time that was deemed presumptuous. When it actually did become Tomcat 4.0, the opportunity was taken to correct a problem whereby Tomcat was the name for both the Jakarta subproject and the servlet engine.
Yep. There is "brand identity" around Tomcat = Servlets + JSP, so the servlet container itself needed a different name (Catalina) for people who wanted to package it without the JSP stuff (Jasper).
(My preference would be that subprojects don't nest, but that's another discussion).
Perhaps it would be appropriate to request a clarification on the general mailing list.
Also regarding building inter-project file DAGs?
If a standard evolves, I would like to track to in my tinderbox builds. Have you looked at my definition files? By virtue of actually attempting it on a large scale, there likely are some aspects that are worthy of reuse. But if you have any suggestions, I would appreciate it.
I'd also like any feedback on whether the consensus is that this functionallity should be layered on top of Ant, or included in the core.
- Sam Ruby
Craig McClanahan