ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Costin Manolache <>
Subject RE:
Date Mon, 30 Dec 2002 21:16:00 GMT
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:

> Some comments about PropertyHelper, I think that instead of declering
> members of the class protected we should used private members and set/get
> protected accessors. This produces more refactorable code and without
> funny side effects.

No problem, it's easy to do that. I expect many small changes like that -
but first I would like to get things settled and working well.

> can someone explain (again?) why is the issue of inmutable properties
> being revisited? I am one of those that pushed for inmutability early on
> and would like to know why are we continuing to hit on this issue.

I think I pushed a bit for imutability too ( on the first implementation of 
Property ) :-) And I haven't changed my mind.

PropertyHelper adds "dynamic properties" - i.e. properties that are 
evaluated. And it add a pluggable store for properties. 

> If people want mutable things, they can use References for that, which ARE
> mutable. Maybe all what we need is syntax to be able to use then as
> strings, and a simple task to create string references:
> <reference name="XRef" value="ZZZ"/>
> <echo>$[XRef]</echo>

I don't think you need a special syntax to display the references. 
Getting a property or reference has no effect on the value.
 <echo>${ref:XRef}</echo> should work fine ( using a dynamic property
that gets references ).

> Then we will have inmutable PROPERTIES and mutable REFERENCES and people
> can pick and choose whatever they want.


> OK, maybe ${...} should look in both PROPERTIES and REFERENCES in that
> order.

That may be confusing, I preffer ${ref:REFERENCE}.
${NAME} will allways return the (imutable) property.


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

View raw message