ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org>
Subject Re: My itches with <local> (was Re: [VOTE] local for 1.6)
Date Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:46:12 GMT
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, peter reilly <peter.reilly@corvil.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 November 2003 15:32, Stefan Bodewig wrote:

>> Your proposal uses a <local> task that sets up a local scope for a
>> named property until the enclosing target/sequential finishes.
>> Jose Alberto suggested to use a <local> TaskContainer instead,
>> something like
>
> I think that this looks clumsy.

possible - I'm not afraid of looking clumsy 8-)  This is IMHO a case
where verbosity is a win.

> (note as well that local-property is not a valid name,

Why not?  Nothing's going to stop my from taskdeffing that name and
<local> is a TaskContainer.  Anyway, I'm in no way attached to any
name, I would even be fine with <let> as the name of the container,
but I'm afraid that not too many users would recognize this.

>> (2) Shadowing of properties
>>
>> I think they shouldn't be allowed to override any outer scope
>> properties at all.
> 
> I think that this will reduce their usefullness a lot.

Maybe.  It would be enough to isolate macrodef invocations from each
other, though.

Allowing them to override "plain" properties opens up the "properties
are immutable" rule and makes it a "properties are immutable unless
overridden in a <local>".  This even stronger asking for a
TaskContainer IMHO.

What is your usecase for overriding properties?

> The idea of not overridding user properties comes from the <ant>
> family behaviour,

Not only.  Even setProperty will not override a use property.

Stefan

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


Mime
View raw message