ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Conor MacNeill" <>
Subject Re: Description
Date Thu, 09 Aug 2001 09:32:55 GMT
From: "Stefan Bodewig" <>
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Conor MacNeill <>
> wrote:
> > OK, I have some thoughts on this patch. Firstly, let me say that I
> > think a description element is a good thing. In fact I thought that
> > was how the target descriptions should have been done
> Which is possible, now that data types can be nested into targets as
> well.

This means, to some extent, that the datatypes have to become aware of
their context so that the <description> datatype can attach itself to the
container (target or project). Otherwise the buildfile structure does not
match the execution model. At the moment, datatypes nested in targets,
actually live in the project scope, if you know what I mean.

> > The description, is not a datatype.
> Not sure why you think so.

Mainly because of the reasons above coupled with the current

> and various frontends could ask the description element for the type
> of description they can handle best ...  This would include stuff like
> generating build documentations in various formats.

OK, sounds cool.

> > The fact that this datatype does not hold its own data but redirects
> > it straight into the project object is an indicator of this
> > mismatch, IMHO.
> This is an implementation detail - the description element could very
> well hold its data by itself (and should IMHO).

Cool. The question then is how the project can access its description(s)
elements. Just a SMOP.

> If you prefer, we can role back the change, discuss it and schedule it
> for 1.5 (sorry, Craeg).

Now, it is in now and I think it will be useful. We should discuss
improving it after the release. I think we need to think more on datatypes
and how they are scoped.


View raw message