Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
From: "Vitaly Stulsky" <vitaly_stulsky@yahoo.com>
To: <ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Generic tasks for idl2java,
 javac ... (was Re: A question about "available" ...)
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 16:49:34 +0300
Message-ID: <NEBBKKLJINOOIADKBEIHMEHHCAAA.vitaly_stulsky@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <m3vh0cvvgj.fsf@sbodewig.bost.de>

> 
> The way tasks are handeled right now - and are expected to be handeled
> in the future - would not allow abstract task classes. The static
> factory method you propose doesn't fit into the way Ant works either.

I kept in mind where writing this that this approach doesn't completely
fit to the current model. We can split this approach to the following 
points:
1) Behavior
2) Realization

I think that proposed behavior better than current. Also this approach fits
good for the tasks with multiple possible realizations.

And task realization. It can be selected after behavior approval. I tried
to avoid myself from bicycle reinventing and proposed the way like
ORB class works. 
Yes, I do not want to argue about current taskdef realization. I found
it very original and well thought-out. But for idlToJava-like taskdefs may
be better to review the initial behavior and approaches?

> I do agree your approach seems to be the most flexible one but would
> need some changes to the Ant core.
Thank you.

 
Vitaly

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com