ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Erik Hatcher" <jakarta-...@ehatchersolutions.com>
Subject Re: IntrospectionHelper request
Date Sun, 06 Jan 2002 19:40:37 GMT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Donald" <peter@apache.org>

> Most likely I would -1 it but it would depend upon how it was implemented
> essentially. I think it is really poor design of tasks that would require
> this and would almost certainly reject any task that used it ;)

I would implement it using the interface that I proposed, and that Jose
refined.  Simple as that, and probably would only involve a few lines of
code (at least it should :).

Would you -1 that implementation?  I just want to know before I code it and
get shot down!  :)

How does implementing this open the flood gates to bad things?

> That could be said of lots of things. Many people would not consider
mutable
> propertys a hack because it adds a lot of capability and only becomes
> apparent if someone actually uses it.
>
> Feel free to repeat this argument for any of the other similar features ;)

Fair enough!  :)

> So far I haven't actually seen a good use for it. Can you give me a good
use
> case ? The only one provided is directly due to limitations in Ant1.x
model.
> When these limitations are removed there would be no need for DynaTask. So
> besides the specified case have you got another example ?

The XDoclet use-case is the only use-case I have in mind now.

Keep in mind that I'm of the opinion that Ant probably should be using
XDoclet in the future to allow a lot of a tasks configuration to be
specified in meta-data allowing documentation to be generated as well as any
other artifacts needed (configurator Java classes perhaps?).

    Erik


--
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