Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RFE] Richer Task Specification
References: <8525690A.004411A9.00@d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com>
From: Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@bost.de>
Date: 26 Jun 2000 15:24:08 +0200
In-Reply-To: rubys@us.ibm.com's message of "Mon, 26 Jun 2000 08:06:53 -0400"
Message-ID: <m3ya3s8tjb.fsf@sbodewig.bost.de>
Lines: 28
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Canyonlands)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

>>>>> "sr" == rubys  <rubys@us.ibm.com> writes:

 sr> Stefan wrote: 

 >> I feel my opposition against tasks on the same level as targets
 >> fade a little.

 sr> I just hope that this is not because I am wearing you down!  ;-)

Don't worry, it takes more than that - an almost three year old son
for example 8^).

If it was only for the taskdef case that started all this, I still
think a depends attribute like Matt suggested would have been the
best solution. 

But I'm really intrigued by the idea of buildfiles without targets. We
might even attract users that never used any text based build tools at
all.

 sr> For now, I would suggest we keep it simple: only allow tasks to
 sr> appear before or inside of targets.

Something inside of me says "only allow tasks outside of targets if
there are no targets at all" but that's probably too confusing -
especially to new users.

Stefan