Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Message-ID: <3BB7AF0C.2F9629DF@home.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 16:47:24 -0700
From: Phil Surette <philsurette@home.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Script enhancement to standardize the "project" object
 exposed
References: <3.0.32.20010927141649.00cf87e0@zbl6c008.corpeast.baynetworks.com>
 <20010930041352.FDST13193.mss.rdc2.nsw.optushome.com.au@there>
 <003101c1497a$d122a170$6501a8c0@GILAMONSTER>
 <20010930072250.JCRH13193.mss.rdc2.nsw.optushome.com.au@there>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Wow! Step away from my computer for a couple of days and I see 
my suggestion has borne strange fruit!

I'm new to this list so I guess my vote doesn't count, but I'd
give a +1 to the 'self' addition if I could... though I think
Erik said that 'self' did not work. I prefer 'script' to 
'thisScript' since long, verbose names are not very
scripty.

The addition of 'project' is a great improvement over the
current state of affairs. I'm glad that got through.
Ideally I'd like to see 'project' and 'this' both, since
it is the 'project' object you will be working with most of
the time, and once again having to type script.project
all over the place is not very scripty.

I don't think backward compatibility of scripts is a huge
issue. Scripts will be as backward compatible as regular
tasks. If you don't want people creating dependencies
on the Ant API, you shouldn't publish the API in the
distribution ;)

Finally, here's a possible valid reason why scripts should be able 
to access their task (easily, since they can do it awkwardly already):
BuildExceptions. When a script wants to throw a BuildException,
it should be using the BuildException constructor that
takes a Task argument.