ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeffrey E Care <ca...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Limit PropertyHelper delegates to a certain scope?
Date Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:25:53 GMT
Yeah, I've been working on other projects for quite a while but recently I 
got thrown back into low-level build stuff. I'm still trying to push some 
Ant patches through IBM's legal approval process so if/when that ever 
happens you're likely to see some more of me.

Anyway, I figured that there was no way to remove delegates, so my hacky 
work around will have to do for now I guess. I'm curious to get the 
community's thoughts on this: would delegate removal be a valuable thing 
to have? If there's a consensus that delegate removal is a good thing then 
I'm willing to work on it and submit it with the other patches that I have 
in the pipe.

____________________________________________________________________________________________


Jeffrey E. (Jeff) Care 
carej@us.ibm.com 
IBM WebSphere Application Server 
WAS Release Engineering 







From:   Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@gmail.com>
To:     Ant Developers List <dev@ant.apache.org>
Date:   07/27/2011 02:48 PM
Subject:        Re: Limit PropertyHelper delegates to a certain scope?



Hi, Jeff!  Seems like it's been awhile.  :)

  Off the top of my head the only thing that occurs to me are
ant/antcall/subant:  the tasks that create a new project.  :/

Matt

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Jeffrey E Care <carej@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> I have a situation where I'm retrofitting some old code to use the
> PropertyHelper delegates that where added in Ant 1.8; in particular I 
need
> to limit that scope to which a certain delegate is active.
>
> I know how to add a delegate but there doesn't seem to be any way of
> removing a delegate once it's no longer needed: they seem to persist
> forever. As a stop-gap I've added a way to "deactivate" my delegate such
> that it will always return the proper values so that the next delegate 
will
> be invoked, but that seems like a poor work around.
>
> Is there a better way to do this?
> 
____________________________________________________________________________________________
>  Jeffrey E. (Jeff) Care
> *carej@us.ibm.com* <carej@us.ibm.com>
>  IBM WebSphere Application Server
> WAS Release Engineering
>
>  [image: WebSphere Mosiac]
> [image: WebSphere Brandmark]
>
>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/related (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message