On 14/09/05, Ashley Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > Excuse the ill thought through syntax, especially when it comes to > the group/artifact/version values, but hopefully this would be > similar syntax as you'd use to configure any other plugin. And from > the point of view of a maven user, ie not plugin writer, it seems a > compelling use case. I'm not suggesting that custom plugins should be > written as ant targets but I am suggesting that maybe the existing > ant library tasks should be embraced as first class citizens in Maven > also. > > Maybe there is some aspect that I'm missing with the power of Maven > plugins, but it seems with with a little effort on a plugin decorator > for ant tasks, you could make maven instantly more powerful.
I agree that given the vast number of ant tasks out there it does make sense to reuse them, although I would see this done as a proper maven plugin as opposed to using antrun. > A couple of inline comments below... [snip] > Not sure what the repeated configuration means - I express my > configuration section just once don't I? Hopefully Maven would make > things efficient under the hood. Sure, but only once in a POM. If multiple projects start requiring the antrun-supplied functionality then you'll end up cutting & pasting ant scripts between POMs, which kinda defeats the whole purpose of maven. > > * No ant dependencies or ant-based exceptions > > The point of my post is that this is not a good thing - I would like > Maven to know about ant (wrap exceptions if it pleases) So using ant tasks directly in place of mojos? I would have thought this could be achieveable in maven via plexus and custom plugin xml, but not sure about the politics of it. Ant tasks do potentially come with fair amount of ant-related baggage though since they're not strictly pojos.. what do the developers think? Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
