ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Adding Dynamic elements for the n'th time
Date Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:01:04 GMT
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Conor MacNeill <>

> My definition of polymorphism in Ant is that I should be able to
> extend a type and pass that new type to the task in place of the
> original. [SNIP] The current approach is not that nice (defining a
> type instance with id and then refid'ing it at point of use).
> So, this we should agree on as a desirable goal.

OK, +1 from me.

> What comes next is the notation to express the use of derived type,
> and the underlying implementation in the core. In Mutant I advocated
> an explicit statement of the substitution

This here?


> My original Ant 1 patch (which Magesh has cited) used a different
> approach where it tried to guess which underlying method is to be
> used.

So the example from the link above would become

    <copy todir="dest">
      <classfileset dir="../../bin/ant1compat/">
        <root classname=""/>

yes?  Sorry, haven't had the time to read the patch to know.

This one looks easier to write and read from a build file writer's
perspective.  What has been the reason to use a different notation in

> Using only one piece of information (the type name) has limits.

I think I remember it.  A problem arises when you have two different
nested elements (element names) that both accept the same class.  Say
you have <mypath> that is derived from Path, what would it be used for

<javac ...>
  <mypath .../>

src, classpath, sourcepath, bootclasspath and extdirs would be
possible.  Has this been the reason for your choice Conor?  How would
your patch deal with it Magesh?


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

View raw message