Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 6263 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2001 23:16:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO osaka.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.133) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Nov 2001 23:16:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 27741 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2001 23:19:24 -0000 Received: from nagoya.betaversion.org (192.18.49.131) by osaka.betaversion.org with SMTP; 5 Nov 2001 23:19:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 3513 invoked by uid 97); 5 Nov 2001 23:16:42 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 3478 invoked by uid 97); 5 Nov 2001 23:16:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 3464 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2001 23:16:40 -0000 Message-Id: <200111052316.fA5NGdu05710@mail012.syd.optusnet.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" From: Peter Donald To: "Ant Developers List" Subject: Re: [Ant2] Tasks as siblings of Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 10:11:23 +1100 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1] References: In-Reply-To: X-Wisdom-Cookie: . MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 03:50, Tim Dawson wrote: > > a) restrict the possible tasks inside init to just those required (which > > doesn't include all those property/available/etc) which most people would > > not > > > find useful > > b) make thse constructs tasks which would require tight coupling between > > runtime and tasks which would unduly restrict future evolution > > I disagree. There's no reason to make such a restriction that I can see. right. > In fact, the property/available/etc. might be required in order to do task > definitions properly. -1 > Right now, its possible to define a task after building it in the same > file. Or at least it was with 1.3, I haven't tried it in a while because > I'm on some new projects that don't need that. it will still be possible in ant2 but the standard approach will be to use (like import for java). Thus hopefully the use of oldstyle taskdef will be minimized. > Executing the init target (if defined) would validate it (it would fail if > it wasn't valid). You could then validate the rest of the file. Problem > solved, > as far as I can see. the solution to problem is to avoid problem? I don't see that as a good thing. We want to validate the build file as much as we can before execution starts. > > c) not intuitive - imagine you had to search through a > > java file for an init method and inside that was located > > all the java import statements. > > No, I think its very intuitive. Imagine you had a method in every > object that could get called when its created. Oh, wait, Java does have > those, they're called constructors. :-) eh? You were talking about "supposedly preprocess/validation requires top-level tasks". These constructs are not tasks but import statements. What place do they have being in a constructor ? -- Cheers, Pete ---------------------------------------------------- "The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible." -Arthur C. Clarke ---------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: