ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Dawson <>
Subject RE: [Ant2] Tasks as siblings of <target>
Date Tue, 30 Oct 2001 15:58:09 GMT
Jose writes
> > > > Is Jose's approach of having an empty interface going to be
> > > > accepted?
> > >
> > > All I've seen so far are a number of "I could live with this"
> > > statements, but no strong support for either option.
> > 
> > The main hesitation on my part is that you want to identify 
> badly setup build 
> > files as early as possible - preferrably in the parser or 
> some such. However 
> > as the interface a class implements can only be tested for 
> in the very bowels 
> > of the implementation I am very hesitent to adopt it. I 
> would prefer a 
> > manifest entry or flag in type library descriptor or 
> something like that if 
> > this was the path we chose to go. 
> > 
> I have no problem in principle with that. As long as we can 
> eliminate all traces of hardcoded tasks from the parser I am happy. 
> This would also mean changes in the current way we install 
> tasks/types today (i.e., property files), since e need to 
> pass more than just a name-value pair. We could move to 
> something like my <antlib> right away.

I would obviously like to see that. Any chance we could get that in a 1.5
release like I originally proposed?  The vote I tried to start never ended
in any actual votes, just a lot of discussion until Jose sent out his
implementation patch.

Let's try another vote proposal.  Jose - do you want to write up what you
did or should I resurrect the old proposal?



To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message