Return-Path: 
 <ant-dev-return-20820-qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-dev=jakarta.apache.org@jakarta.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@apache.org
Received: (qmail 51426 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2001 13:38:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Dec 2001 13:38:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 7132 invoked by uid 97); 6 Dec 2001 13:38:45 -0000
Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Received: (qmail 7116 invoked by uid 97); 6 Dec 2001 13:38:45 -0000
Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ant-dev-subscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
List-Id: "Ant Developers List" <ant-dev.jakarta.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" <ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Received: (qmail 7105 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2001 13:38:44 -0000
X-Authentication-Warning: bodewig.bost.de: bodewig set sender to
 bodewig@bost.de using -f
To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Immutability
From: Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org>
Date: 06 Dec 2001 14:31:55 +0100
Message-ID: <m33d2owk38.fsf@bodewig.bost.de>
Lines: 44
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.4 (Civil Service)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

Maybe I'm coming to late - have been too busy, sorry - but I'll try
anyway.

Has anybody of you (those of you pushing for property immutability in
the core) had a look at what we decided upon when we put together out
Ant2 requirements?  I'm talking about

* make properties fully dynamic, i.e. allow their value to be reassigned

  [will need more discussion because of vote by Glenn McAllister and
                                                Conor MacNeill]

  [finally ACCEPTED]

The actual votes her have been:

+1 by Peter Donald, Stefan Bodewig, Conor MacNeill (with some scoping
and command line override remarks), Nico Seessle, Glenn McAllister
(with some scoping remarks).

+2 Simeon Fitch

no other votes.

Can these votes all be invalidated by the patches that went in?

Erik, I really appreciate all the work that you have done and you've
cleanup up a lot of Ant's core classes a fair bit with it, but maybe
we are really going one or two steps too far?

We want to leave <property> as task the way it is, OK.  We probably
also want to make all property setting core tasks behave the same way.
But do we really want to enforce property immutability as a core
feature?  Our vote in April/May quite clearly says no, and at least
mine still stands.

Having said that, let's rework the last patches so that existing core
tasks don't override existing properties but there still is an API to
modify properties.

Consider this a -1 against the functionality of enforcing property
immutability in the core.

Stefan

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