ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Duncan Davidson" <dun...@x180.com>
Subject Re: Why Properties became immutable
Date Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:47:39 GMT
on 7/23/00 8:28 AM, Conor MacNeill at conor@m64.com wrote:

>> Note: The current version of Ant allows the System property
>> list to be consulted for a return value if the property list
>> doesn't satisfy the requested property name. As all Java code
>> has access to the system property list via the java.lang.System
>> class, this functionality is considered to be confusing and
>> to be removed.
> 
> Well, I don't understand that bit and I have seen something in another
> thread about it. I think that should go from the spec, or perhaps Duncan can
> share his vision?

Oh, it was a cute hack. :) Just like ${} to be honest. In retrospect having
the fall back to sys props wasn't such a good idea if you are going to have
full mutability. When I last worked on the design doc, full mutability of
properties was intended (as well as full mutability of the runtime
representation of tasks and targets) so that a script, or a task, had full
control of what was yet to come and could do nifty things.

> On the point you raised in your email, I think properties should have
> project-scope only and not target scope. Target scope implies a
> functionality which is not there.

+1 on project scope only. It's clearest from an API look onto a project
(from within Java or any scripting environment)

.duncan


Mime
View raw message