ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Thomas Haas" <thomas.h...@softwired-inc.com>
Subject Re: Ant Principles
Date Thu, 20 Apr 2000 22:59:29 GMT

> From: Kuiper, Arnout <Arnout.Kuiper@nl.origin-it.com>
>
> Nested objects
> ==============
>
>   Suppose the type is Foo.
>   1. Check if Foo(String) exists. If so, use it, and we're done.
>   2. Check if Foo(double) exists. If so, cast String to double,
>      use it, and we're done.
>   3. iterate step 2 for each primitive type.
>   4. Failure...

Random thought:
Would a factory method instead of the constructor add value to your
proposal?
public static Foo create(String)
We get the possibility of returning a subclass of Foo instead of Foo itself.
However I cannot think of a situation right now, where I could use it. And
the same effect could be achieved by using a strategie object.


> - Nested elements are added with reflection. Look for a method
>   with the signature "void addObject(Type value)", where Object
>   is the name of the element. An object of type Type is instantiated,
>   and we recurse on that nested element. I think addFoo is better
>   than setFoo, because we can have multiple elements with the same tag.
>   In the following example, two include objects are added. If you named
>   the method setInclude, you might expect that only the last include is
>   known.

This implies a subclass of a task cannot use a subclass of Type as Object?
I like your proposal, but I am unsure, if this limitation makes reuse of
tasks more difficult. Anyone?

- tom




Mime
View raw message