ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dominique Devienne <DDevie...@lgc.com>
Subject RE: SubAnt output
Date Fri, 02 Jul 2004 09:35:35 GMT
-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Bodewig

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Dominique Devienne <DDevienne@lgc.com> wrote:

> [DD] What if instead of adding all these methods, we called
> [DD] ant.perform() instead of ant.execute()!?
> [DD] perform() fires the the taskStarted event, so would that be
> [DD] enough? Would be a lot less code, no?

It would help with the I/O "problem" but at the same time cause a task
started event for <ant> which would lead to some visible output.  This
would make the design choice of delegating to Ant use visible and even
be confusing to users (which <ant> task?  I never started an <ant>
task).

[DD] Hmmm, I see your point. I personnally don't mind exposing this
[DD] aspect of the implementation of SubAnt, especially when in fact
[DD] a lot of tools look for the execution of Ant to find out about
[DD] subbuilds. This point is kind of moot with your addition of
[DD] SubBuildListener though.

[DD] I still think that the fact that SubAnt must be aware of these
[DD] I/O issues is not very clean, since not fully encapsulated in
[DD] Ant itself. It would be better if Ant explicitly pushed its
[DD] new Project on Ant's I/O subsystem to associate it to the current
[DD] thread, popping it in a finally, and not have to make SubAnt
[DD] or any task that internally uses an Ant instance (I have several!)
[DD] explicitly deal with it.

[DD] I hope I'm making sense. Thanks, --DD

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


Mime
View raw message