ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>
Subject Re: IntrospectionHelper request
Date Sun, 06 Jan 2002 20:19:02 GMT
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 06:40, Erik Hatcher wrote:
> ----- 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 :).

ok will actually have a proepr look at it tonight ;)

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

Theres plenty of things - will have a look and tell you if I don't like. 
However the main reason I would -1 is because it is only a workaround for a 
limitation of ant and I don't want to be supporting more ugly hack 
workarounds into the future ;)

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

Increasing the "surface area" of a project always comes at a cost. If the 
cost can not be justified by added features etc or the cost is not offset 
somehow then it is probably a bad idea to add specific feature.

We already have oodles more "join points" (ie places where we are flexible) 
than we actually need if it had designed it properly from the start. Where we 
have numerous patterns for things like

addX
createX
addConfiguredX
setX

we could have probably gotten away with just

addX
setX

or even just

setX 

if we didn't want to make to much of a distinction between 
elements/attributes.


Think of it this way. Give ant 50 points for every minor feature and 100 
points for every major feature. Then subtract 5 points for every  "access 
point" (ie public/protected methods/attributes) and subtract 100 points for 
every structure/pattern required and 10 points for every public class.

The higher the result the better ant is from both a user and developers point 
of view. However I think ant would actually score rather low as it has a 
whole bunch of tasks written in an "interesting" manner. Some have public 
attributes (!!!), many include numerous protected/public methods that don't 
need to be public/protected, we have many replicated/redundent 
patterns/classes that come from different stages of ants evolution etc. 

> > 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.

That makes me less inclined to support it if anything ;)

> 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?).

Sounds kool Could you give us an example of what something like that would 
look like? and have you played with any of it yet?

-- 
Cheers,

Pete

*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power."          |
|       -Abraham Lincoln                               |
*------------------------------------------------------*

--
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