ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: my local version of <copy> supports filesystem resources now
Date Thu, 29 Sep 2005 03:55:10 GMT
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Matt Benson <> wrote:
> --- Stefan Bodewig <> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Matt Benson
>> <> wrote:
>> > I'd like to revisit this after your changes are
>> > committed.
>> Sure.
> This was RE Copy/filesystem only.  I agree that move should work
> this way.  We don't know how to move non-file resources.  We do know
> how to copy non-file resources.  I would think we could also sync
> them...  but that would be later.

I agree, the way I patched sync should make any change to copy work
transparently for sync as well.

> Now, accepting that we have these protected ( >:( ) members to
> support, I suppose my chosen approach would be to duplicate the file
> maps as private resource maps w/ protected accessors.

Yes, something like this.  If you look into Expand and Untar I've done
something along those lines.  I kept the protected File based
signatures and added new ones for Resource which throws an exception
in Expand but works in Untar.

> Then we change the copy logic to call some form of
> FileUtils.copyResource().

ResourceUtils ...

> Holes?

No, should work.


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

View raw message