ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steve Cohen" <>
Subject RE: <macrodef> attributes as properties or as textual substitutions [was <local>]
Date Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:52:50 GMT
>From my point of view, I am sitting with a massive, slow, and messy
build script that I would love to convert to using macrodefs instead of
antcalls.  I am waiting for this to be resolved before proceeding.  On
the other hand, I can live with what I have for awhile.  Some
preliminary experiences have indicated problems which I shared with the
dev list earlier this week.  I imagine that whatever scheme is chosen
will require some sizable effort to convert.  I would rather not do this
in 1.6 and then again in 1.7, unless the conversion path is easy.

What I don't understand in Antoine's question is whether the new
notation would have to be scrapped for the new implementation of local
in 1.7 or whether it would still apply.

Unless this is going to delay the release for months, I would say, get
it right, now.

Steve Cohen
Sr. Software Engineer
Sportvision, Inc. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Antoine Levy-Lambert [] 
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 10:31 AM
To: Ant Developers List
Subject: <macrodef> attributes as properties or as textual substitutions
[was <local>]

Here is a new subject.

What are the advantages of leaving macrodef with attributes implemented
as textual substitutions ?

My impression is that the <local> properties are more powerful.

Otherwise, of course, if we leave macrodef as it is with just a new
notation for the attributes, then we can release 1.6 sooner.

If we choose a notation $() for macro attributes (for instance), can we
implement macrodef with <local/> in 1.7 ? or will we have a problem of
backward compatibility in any case ?



-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: Stefan Bodewig []
Gesendet: Freitag, 31. Oktober 2003 17:13
Betreff: Re: <local>

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, peter reilly <> wrote:
> On Friday 31 October 2003 15:55, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, peter reilly <> wrote:
>> > No, it matters if the attributes in macrodef are implemented as 
>> > properties or if they are implemented as textual subsitutions.
>> OK, but then this becomes the question to decide and not whether we 
>> need <local> in 1.6, right?
> Yes

Do we need a different thread to get a wider audience?

>> If they are properties, we don't need an alternative.  What are the 
>> difficulties you expect when they are not properties?
> Only the choice of the notation.

MSBuild uses $() for its properties and @() for something else -
probably Item references at first glance.

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

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

View raw message