Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 43077 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2001 03:26:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mblfw3.macquarie.com.au) (203.28.95.251) by h31.sny.collab.net with SMTP; 13 Feb 2001 03:26:36 -0000 Received: by mblfw3.macquarie.com.au; id OAA25151; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:26:16 +1100 Received: from mblfw4(203.18.209.231) by mblfw3.macquarie.com.au via smap (V4.2) id xma024373; Tue, 13 Feb 01 14:25:12 +1100 Received: by mblfw4.macquarie.com.au; id OAA03335; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:25:07 +1100 Received: from isdserv3.macbank(10.123.0.32) by mblfw4.macquarie.com.au via smap (V4.2) id xma002515; Tue, 13 Feb 01 14:24:02 +1100 Received: from nt_syd_ex01.macbank (nt_syd_ex01 [10.124.15.10]) by isdserv3.macbank (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA10903 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:24:00 +1100 (EST) Received: by nt_syd_ex01.macbank with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <1Y7MF49N>; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:23:55 +1100 Message-ID: <67FE02381F67D3119F960008C7845A2C0201CFC4@nt_syd_ex09.macbank> From: Tim Vernum To: "'ANT-dev'" Subject: RE: Overriding default Target conditionals Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:23:50 +1100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N > >I guess along those lines would it be possible to modify the > field/method > >modifiers for the current tasks to protected from private. > I have run into > >a few situations where I needed to add a small change to one > of the tasks, > >but they had private fields which I needed to modify, or > private methods > >which I needed to call, so I had to duplicate the entire task. > > Send patches and they would gladly be accepted (at least by me ;]) Is this a good idea? Do you want custom tasks to be relying on the implementations of core tasks? Isn't that why we have multiple "jikes" objects, because custom tasks use the existing task, and rely on an implementation? I'm not against reuse of tasks, but wildly changing things from private to protected just because someone finds the functionality useful, is a recipe for "can't change it, might break someone's build". -1 from me (as if my vote even counted)