ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject Re: IntrospectionHelper request
Date Sat, 12 Jan 2002 03:31:31 GMT
On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 14:23, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
> > Umm ... I have talked about this before - this wont be a problem if they
> > extend AbstractTaskContainer because they will never be exposed to low
> > level APIs.
> Well maybe I do not understand the code. Can you explain how this
> simplifies doing whatever one wants to do with configuration? The code seem
> to just provide the default Configurator and use it. But if that is the
> case then why did I needed to implement Configurable in the first place?

I don't recall what the code looks like at this point in time but I have said 
that it will eventually look like something such as

setAttribute( name, value );
addElement( name, value );
execTask( myTask );

This should cover most of the normal stuff.

I guess we could make AbstractTaskContainer implement configurable and then 
allow subclasses to get config tree via getConfiguration() - that would be 
less work to them and expose less complexity. 



"If you don't know where you want to go, we'll make 
sure you get taken." 
Microsoft ad slogan, translated into Japanese.

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

View raw message