ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Sieben (EUS)" <EUSJ...@am1.ericsson.se>
Subject RE: Possible Exec and MatchingTask Refactorings
Date Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:08:29 GMT
Just out of curiosity, what is the objection to ${} syntax? I find it to be
handy, quick, and efficient way to express the variable. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@bost.de]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 5:44 AM
To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: Possible Exec and MatchingTask Refactorings


>>>>> "TD" == Tom Dimock <tad1@cornell.edu> writes:

 TD> At 04:58 PM 06/27/2000 +0200, you wrote:

 TD> but not long enough to know what was proposed to replace it....

Well, one thing we all seemed to agree on was that properties should
be richer objects, not just Strings, and that the Project would hold a
java.util.Properties like repository of these.

I've not seen a proposal on how to set these properties with types
other than String so far and in fact I've not seen an alternative to
the ${} syntax. I think the last point should be done by passing the
name of the property to the task and let the task evaluate it - just
like the if/unless attributes of the include/exclude parts in
MatchingTask work.

Your <worklist> would be a way to specify a property with file list
value, right? So how about giving the Property task - it is a Task
implementation after all - MatchingTask behavior?

<property name="files" dir="mybasedir>
  <include ... />
</property>

Stefan


Mime
View raw message