ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kuiper, Arnout" <Arnout.Kui...@nl.origin-it.com>
Subject RE: Ant Principles (Design pattern)
Date Fri, 21 Apr 2000 22:12:20 GMT
> From: rubys@us.ibm.com [mailto:rubys@us.ibm.com]
> > Arnout Kuiper wrote:
> >
> > This means that we cannot
> > have nested elements using the "text" tag. This is probably
> > not a big problem (as long as it is documented in the
> > documentation for task writers), because you can always use
> > a synonym.
> 
> I thought that way at first too, but the more I think about 
> it, it need not
> be the case.
> 
> True, String is an Object, but its null contructor doesn't construct
> something that is particularly useful.  Furthermore, String 
> doesn't have
> any bean properties which will enable a null string to ever 
> become more
> useful.

You're totally right. The problem solved itself;-)

> While I'm not much of a fan for special cases, adding a 
> special case in the
> code to ignore addText(String) when looking for elements 
> removes a special
> case for the task designer, and in my mind, that is always the right
> tradeoff.

Does this mean a task/nested object can have two addText() methods?
"void addText(String)" which is called when adding CDATA chunks and
"void addText(SomeObject)" which is called for a nested element with
the tag "text"?

If so, +1 for me.

  Arnout

Mime
View raw message