ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacob Kjome <>
Subject Re: Ant 1.6 local and macrodef attributes
Date Thu, 27 Nov 2003 05:21:55 GMT
Hi Stefan,

At 04:00 PM 11/26/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Jacob Kjome <> wrote:
> > I doubt many in the community are currently using <macrodef> so I'm
> > not sure I'd point to lack of community support when saying whether
> > or not to include <local> functionality in <macrodef>.
>"developer community" would have been better.

that makes more sense, I guess.

>Peter started votes for it on the dev list and the vote was not
>positive.  I tend to agree[1] with you that <macrodef> without <local>
>is less powerful than with, but that doesn't make <macrodef> useless
>without them.

The only two use use cases I currently have for macrodef require <local> 
functionality, so it is useless to me.  On the other hand, with the <local> 
patch, this cleans up a ton of <antcall>'s.  In one case, I do a 
<pathconvert> and store the result in a property and in the other, I do 
dependency checking a use <available> to see if the library exists locally 
before attempting download over the net.  I couldn't do either of these 
things without being able to set properties and have them go away, ready 
for the next call to be able to set those properties again.  <macrodef> 
would certainly make this all more efficient.  But, again, it won't work 
without the <local> patch.  In other words, useless.

>One exit path would be <macrodef> without <local> in 1.6 and adding
><local> at any later point in time.

So people can ignore the task until 1.7 when it will become something more 
than nearly useless?  Why introduce a crippled task?  Give it all the 
functionality it needs and then release it.  It's one thing if Ant-1.6 was 
released and only after that did people realize that certain functionality 
would have been nice (required).  That's not the case here.  We know it is 
crippled, yet we're still considering releasing it in the crippled 
state.  That just makes zero sense.

I applied the <local> patch and I have the functionality I need.  I have 
the power to replace all these stupid <antcall>s.  The thought of now not 
having this capability in the official 1.6 release is distressing.

> > I urge you and the other committers to either reconsider your votes
>non-votes.  Can anybody reconsider not doing something?  8-)

If it will make the <local> patch get committed, I'm all for it :-)  We can 
work out the philosophical implications later.


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

View raw message