Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010523215545.0102fe10@mail.alphalink.com.au>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 21:55:45 +1000
To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
From: Peter Donald <donaldp@apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISC] details of task library concept
Cc: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <3B0BAB37.11FE3414@netbeans.com>
References: <NDBBIMHCHMPELMBMMFIMOEPFFJAA.conor@cortexebusiness.com.au>
 <m3g0dwzdwk.fsf@bodewig.bost.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 01:21 PM 5/23/01 +0100, Jesse Glick wrote:
>Not in response to any particular message but:
>
>Has anyone given thought to optional task (type, ...) metadata classes in Ant
>2.0? For example, in the JavaBeans spec, you can provide a "raw" bean with
>getters and setters and so on and rely 100% on introspection to discover its
>structure. But you may also supply a BeanInfo that gives more information on
>properties, events, etc.
...
>Would it be useful?

We have talked about it ages ago (I think we called them TaskInfos or
AntInfos). It also wen to vote and passed IIRC. We weren't planning on
using BeanInfos directly due to a few reasons. However a while back Costin
suggested Ant2 tasks be JavaBeans and while I didn't like it (nor did
Stefan IIRC). However I can't think of any logical reason not to use Beans
directly so ...

Cheers,

Pete

*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "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               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*