Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 81889 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2003 09:41:40 -0000 Received: from exchange.sun.com (192.18.33.10) by 208.185.179.12.available.above.net with SMTP; 23 Jan 2003 09:41:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 28784 invoked by uid 97); 23 Jan 2003 09:43:13 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 28711 invoked by uid 97); 23 Jan 2003 09:43:12 -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 28683 invoked by uid 98); 23 Jan 2003 09:43:11 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) Message-ID: <3E2FB8D0.7020401@apache.org> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:41:36 +0100 From: Nicola Ken Barozzi Reply-To: nicolaken@apache.org Organization: Apache Software Foundation User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ant Developers List Subject: Re: ReferenceHelper - interceptor References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: 208.185.179.12.available.above.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: 208.185.179.12.available.above.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Dominique Devienne wrote: > >>Didn't understand a thing ;-) > > Me neither 8-) :-)) Good, it means that I was right in my supposition. The Ant HEAD gives you the possibility of intercepting the request to resolve a property. In this way it's possible to insert an interceptor that uses jxpath to resolve properties that start with jxpath: or velocity or whatever. It's theorically possible to do the same with references, and give the possibility of having an interceptor to give the reference. I tried to explain why it's more a complication than a feature, and in fact it's now even more clear that it's too confusing. I had a use case for it, but it now shows that it was too specific, so I won't send a patch to have it done as instead I proposed earlier. Still don't get it? ;-) Don't worry, just take my word for it then: the reason why we have a PropertyHelper and not a ReferenceHelper is that there is no compelling enough reason to have it, also given that it's confusing. Cheers! :-D -- Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: