Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-50785-apmail-ant-dev-archive=ant.apache.org@ant.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 42391 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2003 00:32:59 -0000
Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12)
  by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 20 Sep 2003 00:32:59 -0000
Received: (qmail 12511 invoked by uid 500); 20 Sep 2003 00:32:41 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@ant.apache.org
Received: (qmail 12305 invoked by uid 500); 20 Sep 2003 00:32:40 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dev-subscribe@ant.apache.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@ant.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@ant.apache.org>
List-Id: "Ant Developers List" <dev.ant.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@ant.apache.org
Received: (qmail 12286 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2003 00:32:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx2.compuware.com) (63.115.132.21)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 20 Sep 2003 00:32:40 -0000
Received: from bh1.compuware.com (unknown [10.10.1.31])
	by mx2.compuware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5126341FE4
	for <dev@ant.apache.org>; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:32:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from msn.com (172.23.101.252 [172.23.101.252]) by bh1.compuware.com
 with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13)
	id TH52MWA9; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:32:47 -0400
Message-ID: <3F6BA027.5040203@msn.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:32:39 -0700
X-Sybari-Trust: 02e5ff7b 62e8cf3c becb45ad 0000013d
From: Paul Mclachlan <pdmclach1@msn.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ant Developers List <dev@ant.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] Having <uptodate> execute a nested <sequential> if the
 target is out of date
References: <3F6B6485.1030402@msn.com> <3F6B82E9.5040002@kruithof.xs4all.nl>
In-Reply-To: <3F6B82E9.5040002@kruithof.xs4all.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N
X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

Martijn Kruithof wrote:

> If you make something like this (I don't see a direct benefit), why 
> not make uptodate an taskcontainer so that you can wrap any task in 
> there without the need of indirection via the sequential task.

But if you make <uptodate> a task container itself, it couldn't have 
nested elements that *weren't* tasks (such as it's existing feature of 
nested <srcfiles> or nested <mapper>).  Right?  Or maybe I'm missing 
something.  But (even if I was) it seems like if you adopt this approach 
in general (and make it work), you could have problems with a task name 
conflicting with the name of a normally nested element.

I think it's much better to use a nested <sequential>.  It wouldn't have 
to be called "sequential", of course, we could call it something else, 
like "runIfOutOfDate", but <sequential> seemed more fitting (since 
people will - presumably - already know what it does & what it should 
contain)

- Paul


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org