ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <cost...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: ClassLoaders ( was: Re: We need to stop the lies)
Date Thu, 28 Feb 2002 15:36:38 GMT
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Peter Donald wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:33, costinm@covalent.net wrote:
> > - it seems that 'named' loaders are ok ( or nobody so far
> > gave any argument against it ). By named loader I mean
> > a mechanism to define new loaders ( and their classpaths),
> > and a mechanism to use specific loader for different purposes
> > like taskdefs or task execution
> 
> As long as it is not part of the core there should not be any problem.

The only change to the core will be adding hooks and eventually 
refactoring the 'default' implementation ( the private methods )
out in a separate plugin class ( the default plugin, implementing
the original behavior ).

All new features will come in add-on tasks that will use the
the hooks.

> > 2. Add a mechanism to request a particular loader to be associated
> > with a task.
> >
> > 2.1. <taskdef loaderRef='foo' > will associate the task with a
> > particular loader.
> 
> -1. 
> 
> Create a ***NEW*** taskdef for all your new semantics.

So you sugest a <taskdef1> operating exactly like taskdef but with
an additional attribute ???

> > 2.4. ( Peter's request ) The LoaderManager should be able to
> > control the loader used for each task:
> 
> No way is the kinks of this near being worked out yet. Needs far more testing 
> to be even able to vote on it.

It's not a vote on it - my proposal will provide the hooks that would
allow a custom task to plug this functionality ( so it can be used 
and tested with normal ant1.5 by whoever needs such strange behavior )

> > Most of this proposal is very easy to implement and represents
> > small ( and natural, IMHO ) extensions to the current
> > model, with full backward compatibility and ( again IMHO )
> > full control and flexibility for the user.
> 
> Implement it as tasks and you are much higher chance of getting it in.

Well, given your ( completely unjustified IMHO, but unfortunately 
seconded by another commiter, so validated ) -1 on the TaskAdapter 
improvements I'm not very inclined to get anything in - what can be 
implemented as a task can be kept outside without any problem
and interference. I strongly believe we already have too many 
tasks in ant, and grouping them in libraries is better.

I'm focusing on adding the hooks I need and making the core 
changes only.

Costin


--
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