Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 7959 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2002 19:42:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Jan 2002 19:42:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 18219 invoked by uid 97); 6 Jan 2002 19:42:43 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 18186 invoked by uid 97); 6 Jan 2002 19:42:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 18175 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2002 19:42:42 -0000 Message-ID: <00d901c196ea$060e2af0$6401a8c0@darden.virginia.edu> From: "Erik Hatcher" To: "Ant Developers List" References: <200201061742.g06HgMr30209@mail004.syd.optusnet.com.au> <005101c196df$a35318d0$6401a8c0@darden.virginia.edu> <200201061924.g06JOoc21296@mail016.syd.optusnet.com.au> Subject: Re: IntrospectionHelper request Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 14:40:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Donald" > 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: For additional commands, e-mail: