ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject RE: [PATCH] refactoring of javac task into factory
Date Mon, 18 Dec 2000 04:29:46 GMT
At 01:42  17/12/00 -0500, Jay Glanville wrote:
>Lets not forget one of our goals - to reduce/eliminate our dependence on
>variables.  If we can get to the point where we can say that Ant doesn't use 
>magic variables, then we can make the statement that, logically (not 
>functionally), parameters do not have global scope.  I.e.: if the tasks
>use parameters directly (they only get their information for their
attributes or 
>nested attributes) then parameters only have logical scope within the
>file.  This would be analogous to a method variable (in the procedural
world) or 
>an instance variable within a class.

Design is fine - I encourage at all times - as long as it does not
compromise usability which I think a compielr switch does. If you can thing
of a good pure way of retaining current ease of use then bonza - otherwise
I would prefer the ugly but usable hacks ;)

>Very interesting proposal.  I hadn't thought of that.  Obviously, I didn't 
>participate in the original discussion.  My only concern would be that this 
>would add an extra layer of complexity to a build mechanism.  But, before
>protest, this is only my impression.  I haven't fully thought through the 
>implications of such a proposal.  Personally, I believe in the KISS theory, 
>and thus I dislike changes that will add complexity without adding large 
>amounts of functionality.  But, like I said before, I haven't thought
>the implications of such a proposal.

I think that the reason no one jumped on it was because it was complex ;/ -
however it did solve some of the issues people had. It was interesting
because any attribute could be given a default in "stylesheet" and
overidden if desired. But there was a few other proposal similar to this
that went nowhere



| "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               |

View raw message