ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Rees <d.ree...@usa.net>
Subject Re: What I did to DirectoryScanner
Date Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:57:35 GMT
On 19 Mar 2001 10:23:49 +0100, Stefan Bodewig wrote:

>David Rees <d.rees.l@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> While we are on the subject, is there really a reason for the
>> excluded and non-included parts of DirectoryScanner?
>
>I've never seen anybody use it, but it has been there from the start -
>so we could potentially break some environments if we'd drop them.
>

The problem is I would like to make a nice simple culler interface
like shouldInclude. But to support these three layers of "inclusion" I
need to have shouldInclude and shouldExclude which really doesn't make
sense to me. As a small note, the naming inside DirectoryScanner is
not consistent. "filesIncluded" returns files included and not
excluded (as opposed to files included).

Actually, what I really think is happening is that there needs to be a
shouldScan for directories which is what the shouldInclude is really
being used for (to avoid descending on directories that can never
contain files to match). Then nonIncluded becomes non-scanned,
excluded is scanned-but-included and included means
scanned-and-included. Maybe do this and keep the old APIs for
backwards comparability?

d

Mime
View raw message