ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject Re: IntrospectionHelper request
Date Sun, 06 Jan 2002 19:17:00 GMT
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 05:26, Erik Hatcher wrote:
> From: "Peter Donald" <>
> > To me it seems like an ugly hack to get around limitations of ant1.x -
> while
> > it may be possible to implement this style funcitonality in Ant2 - I
> > don't think it will be done this way or even readily supported by
> > committers.
> So even though you consider it a hack for Ant1.x would adding this
> capability be rejected or allowed? 

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 wasn't sure which version of Ant you
> meant when you said it wouldn't be readily supported)

I was talking Ant2. It may be possible in it but I will do everything in my 
power to stop people from using it like that ;) The only reason such 
functionality is exposed is to allow complicated container tasks to be 
written (everything from <if/>, <try/> to more ugly things). 

> I don't personally consider it a 'hack' as it seems to add a lot of dynamic
> capability, but only if the task itself is asking for it (by implementing
> DynamicConfigurator).

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 ;)

> This is one of the biggest peeves I have against JSP Taglibs.... all their
> attributes must be defined in a TLD file.  It makes some sense in that
> proper attributes are determined at page compilation time, but also
> restricts the flexibility of taglibs IMO.

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 ?

> Will Ant2 allow dynamically defined attributes/elements?  If so, by what
> mechanism?

Probably - the mechanism has not really been decided upon I don't think but 
my preference was to pass the task model/task configuration/hierarchial 
hashmap/whatever to the task and allow it to configure itself (with help from 
the container if needed).



"Liberty means responsibility. That is 
      why most men dread it." - Locke

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message