ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <dona...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Ant 2.0 Consideration
Date Mon, 18 Dec 2000 04:17:12 GMT
At 08:11  17/12/00 -0800, James Duncan Davidson wrote:
>On 12/14/00 9:05 AM, "Peter Donald" <donaldp@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Neither proposal will allow you to directly manipulate task instances
atm for
>> good reason. They both handle it through an abstract - mymidon does it via
>> condifuration objects while AntEater does it through nested hashtables (I
>> assume as it is not done fully yet).
>
>There's a difference, and a significant one, between manipulating task
>instances (ie instances of objects of a particular task type) and tasks --
>the entire definition of which is contained in a Task object and which is
>reflected into the task instance at runtime.

yep.

>AntEater doesn't make you go through nested hashtables. You can get Targets
>from a Project, and get the Tasks from that Project. The hashtables that you
>probably looked at are the internal data structures that the task class
>definitions live in. Much different.

Nope - both proposals treat them identical. Just like mymidon tasks are
backed/represented by Configuration objects AntEater tasks are
represented/backed by Task/hashtables.

Cheers,

Pete

*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*


Mime
View raw message