ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>
Subject Re: <available> / <condition> breaking immutability
Date Mon, 26 Nov 2001 20:19:17 GMT

I consider it broken that these tasks break imuttability and usually I would 
have no problem killing that "feature". However Diane has occasionally 
recomended that on ant-user as a way to get around immutability so ... not 
sure.

I would prefer not to change available to be more inconsistent with standard 
proeprty behaviour ... 


On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 04:39, Erik Hatcher wrote:
> So, just to get clarification -
>
> You are ok with <available> (and other such tasks that currently overwrite
> properties) unsetting properties if the condition fails?
>
> That is my preference simply because it makes sense.  If overriding a
> property is necessary, the -D switch will do it so only builds that were
> relying on strange effects would be breaking, I think.  Or ones that relied
> on the existence of a property even after a failed <available>.
>
> What backwards compatibility issues will we have?  Are the other committers
> on board with this change?  I don't want to go to the effort of patching
> these things if its not an acceptable change.  I'm not sure when/if I'll
> get around to patching it, but this seems like an important issue.
>
> Thanks,
>     Erik
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stefan Bodewig" <bodewig@apache.org>
> To: <ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 9:01 AM
> Subject: Re: <available> / <condition> breaking immutability
>
> > On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Erik Hatcher <jakarta-ant@ehatchersolutions.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > why does <available> and <condition> (and <uptodate>, <tstamp>,
and
> > > some others) break non-user property immutability?  Is this
> > > inadvertent or intentional?
> >
> > inadvertent AFAIK.
> >
> > > I'm (mostly?) of the opinion that <available> and such tasks that
> > > set a property based on some condition should force the
> > > setting/unsetting of the specified non-user property.
> >
> > I can follow you here - of course this would be breaking backwards
> > compatibilty (sigh), but I'd consider builds that relied on
> > <available> not doing what it is supposed to do broken.
> >
> > Stefan
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>

-- 
Cheers,

Pete

The big mistake that men make is that when they turn thirteen or fourteen and
all of a sudden they've reached puberty, they believe that they like women.
Actually, you're just horny. It doesn't mean you like women any more at
twenty-one than you did at ten.                --Jules Feiffer (cartoonist)

--
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