At 08:05 PM 11/27/2001 +1100, Peter Donald wrote:
>If I was the user and I had fubared my build setup then I would want to know
>as early as possible.
Sure, but how is your setup fubared here? What is the downside for the user
if they don't follow exactly the developers' vision of what a property
should be?
I would agree with you if the property-changing behaviour of <available>
ran counter to most peoples' expectations of how it would work, but I doubt
anyone here would make that claim. Would they? It seems obvious to me that
having <available> fail to set the property would create much more
confusion among users than the current behaviour.
Again, this is just my preference. I can see the arguments in favour of
making the change.
>Interesting idea ... needs exploration - I suspect it will be too complex.
>However the real problem is that ant1 is not fully capable of dealing
>with mutable properties and such a technique would need to wait till ant2.
I'm not suggesting any change to code here. You already have a system that
matches up to what I described, although it doesn't enforce the policies
through code. I'm just talking about changing the design perspective on
what a property is by expanding to two types. I'm trying to make it clear
why it is still good design for your current system to have some properties
that can be changed by certain select tasks.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
|