ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Erik Hatcher" <jakarta-...@ehatchersolutions.com>
Subject Re: <available> / <condition> breaking immutability
Date Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:56:27 GMT
Stefan,

Could you refactor your test that uses unsetProperty to do it a different
way?  Is there any other use-case for having an unsetProperty method?   I
took a quick glance at the test case and it seems it could be broken into
two test methods so you wouldn't need unsetProperty - although I might not
be seeing the whole picture.

Would it be ok to return back a copy of the properties hashtable rather than
the actual object?  Any objections?

Thanks,
    Erik





----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Bodewig" <bodewig@apache.org>
To: <ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: <available> / <condition> breaking immutability


> On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Erik Hatcher <jakarta-ant@ehatchersolutions.com>
> wrote:
>
> > We should deprecate Project.unsetProperty also, right?
>
> I added it a few weeks ago and use it from inside a testcase AFAIR.
>
> All changes will be moot as long as we keep Project.getProperties
> around - or change it to return a copy the the "real" Hashtable.
>
> Stefan
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message