ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Rees <>
Subject Re: [DISC] XML issues
Date Tue, 10 Apr 2001 03:48:15 GMT
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 22:10:57 +1000, Peter Donald wrote:

>At 02:00  3/4/01 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>>Peter Donald <> wrote:
>>> However it is at higher complexity build files (medium->high
>>> complexity) where the advantage would be shown. Mainly as it would
>>> allow core to be clean and handling of tasks predictable. For big
>>> build processes it would allow customisation without magic variables
>>> (ala GUMPs sysclasspath) and added value (ie assign fee: namespace
>>> to something specific to buisness).
>>So you propose namespaces to make the "aspect" system pluggable, am I
>>getting this right?  You want a facility to say "I'll take
>>responsibility of all task attributes int the baz namespace"?

I think the "simpler" alternative of introducing a context object with
sub-elements should also be kept for consideration. I think it would
easier for many to understand. Then taking control of logging is as
simple as replacing the logging object. It also moves the
logging/failure attributes out of Task, which I think is the right
thing to do.

In terms of big build processes you could have a set of named contexts
defined to plug in and out.


View raw message