Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 23478 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2002 18:29:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Dec 2002 18:29:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 6340 invoked by uid 97); 13 Dec 2002 18:30:28 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 6302 invoked by uid 97); 13 Dec 2002 18:30:27 -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 6280 invoked by uid 98); 13 Dec 2002 18:30:26 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: Delayed element creation implementation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 18:28:53 -0000 Message-ID: <747F247264ECE34CA60E323FEF0CCC0C0F509B@london.cellectivity.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Delayed element creation implementation Thread-Index: AcKivo9YoHVynX9pQiabe3f2MQazCAAFO5GQ From: "Jose Alberto Fernandez" To: "Ant Developers List" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > From: Costin Manolache [mailto:cmanolache@yahoo.com] >=20 > If we want the description to apply to the _project_ and not=20 > to the task -=20 > then I agree, there is no way to implement as a=20 > datatype. My point here is that is not something that should be=20 executed like a or . It needs to be eveluated at loading time, irrespective of whether the is actually build or = not. The fact that it was originally implemented as a was just = because datatypes happened to have this behaviour on this particular case.=20 But is was just a cute idea based on many assumption about the execution = model. >=20 > Implementing it in ProjectHelper is IMO the worst possible choice.=20 > ( the SAX parsing code should stay simple, and we loose the ability > to use ant without having to do the XML parsing, but directly=20 > via API ). >=20 > What I'll try is to make description similar with ( in the > sense that it'll walk the tree at startup ), and also=20 > "load-on-startup" > ( so it'll be called even if there's no top-level description tag ). >=20 I do not know how particularly works, but if the parser (or = something) needs to recognize and treat it diferent than say , then = yes this is exactly what I meant. Is it possible to redefine using to be something else? Would that make the parser stop treating = specially? If the answers to any of the above questions is NO, then we = are treating these elements as syntactic elements. > I don't think this is a show-stoper for the HEAD - it'll have to be > fixed before the first beta, and I'll like to think more about it. >=20 I agree, this should not be a showstopper at all. Jose Alberto -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: