ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Erik Hatcher" <jakarta-...@ehatchersolutions.com>
Subject Re: Multiple patternsets in a fileset
Date Mon, 18 Feb 2002 01:57:15 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Atherton" <bruce@callenish.com>

> Suppose, though, that Ant 1.x has behaviour that is "incorrect" (as
defined
> by the majority of committers).

Then I'm all for changing it.  I'm being swayed by the arguments here, but I
still don't really consider the current behavior incorrect.  It depends on
how you define what the patternsets for a fileset are supposed to do.

I agree that your use-cases are good reasons for change, but provided we
don't adversely affect Ant 1.x.

> >There are other glaringly difficult issues with other datatypes that
cannot
> >be resolved in the 1.x codebase.
>
> Would using a "-legacy" flag work for your examples? Or would the APIs
have
> to change?

I think the way DirectoryScanner works (or its usage in a fileset) would
have to change or at least its use the Ant codebase.

> proves time and again, "documenting counterintuitive behaviour = bad,
> fixing counterintuitive behaviour = good".

Ok, ok!  :)

But again, I don't necessarily find the current behavior counter-intuitive,
but perhaps thats simply because I've got to much of an under-the-hood
understanding of whats going on.

    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