Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Peter Donald <donaldp@apache.org>
To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: Introspection Change comments
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 01:27:59 +1000
References: <007e01c119d5$d07aed10$c8f13c3f@cognetnt>
In-Reply-To: <007e01c119d5$d07aed10$c8f13c3f@cognetnt>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <0108010127590C.00761@helm.realityforge.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Wed,  1 Aug 2001 01:19, Conor MacNeill wrote:
> I would like to get some feedback on a change I am considering. With the
> current Introspection nested element support, the task's method
> corresponding to the nested element is called before the nested element is
> configured. I would like to add a mechanism to support the calling of this
> method after the element is configured. 

+1000 ;)

> So, what do you think? It makes some tasks easier to write if the element
> is configured before it is added to the task. Certainly this was the case
> for manifests. If you think this is worthwhile, what about the naming of
> the methods eligible for this?
>
> Let me know your thoughts?

If you recall ages ago the idea of using stright Bean properties (or a subset 
of) was floated (I think by Costin in about Dec?). So if you were going to 
make this change I would like to see the Introspector to use either

void setMyVar( final MyType myVar );

or

void setMyVar( final MyType[] myVar );

This would make Ant tasks more bean compliant and munge better with the way 
most people write code. Like/Dislike ?

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               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*