ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] task/documentation writer's business
Date Thu, 22 Mar 2001 14:07:59 GMT
Simeon Fitch <> wrote:

> Apologies if this is outside the voting rules or not the issue being
> resolved here, but some of these I've marked as -1 as I think they
> should be "optional" tasks rather than core tasks.

Actually my +1s didn't mean I think that stuff belongs to core either,
just that it would be fine with me if anybody implemented it ...

>> * Add a JavaApply task that executes a given class with files from
>> * a fileset as arguments - similar to <apply>.
> -0 (could apply be appropriatly modified to cover this case).

probably - depending on what we come up with later, <apply> might no
longer be necessary either.

>> * make the default logger's output clear, informative, and terse.
>>   Actually, this is a little bit abstract, but doesn't apply to the
>>   core either.
> -1 (This is a task implementation guideline, not something that can
> be implemented by the logging module; unless this is a veiled
> commentatry about the "-emacs" feature. In that case my vote is +0).

Yes, I think it was about the -emacs switch - anything else would be a
guideline at best.

>> * make PATH handling consistent. Every task that has a PATH
>> * attribute must also accept references to PATHs.
> -0 (isn't this more of an issue of allowing references in all
> attribute values, which I'd +1).

we could make it that way - and might even be able to make the core do
that for us.

>> * URL-spider task that checks links for missing content or server
>> * errors
> -0 (how is this different from the "reachable" task above. could
> they be combined?)

not too different. Apart from the spider part of this, a page would be
reachable, even if it returned an internal server error.


View raw message