ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <dona...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Ant2] Tasks as siblings of <target>
Date Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:03:48 GMT
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 22:48, Conor MacNeill wrote:
> I agree with Jose Alberto that the parser (currently ProjectHelper)
> should not have any "special cases", such as the current test 'if name
> == "property" doBlackMagic()'. However there is a limit to that. There
> are some constructs in the buildfile which should be recognized and
> handled by the parser and not delegated. This is necessary because some
> of these constructs deal with fundamental core datastructures. I agree
> with Peter that we want clear separation between core components and
> user tasks through a clear well-defined interface. I believe this is
> necessary to support a proper classloader hierarchy - there will be core
> classes that cannot be made available to tasks, without coupling
> classloaders and the nightmares that brings. We need something similar
> to the servlet engines which carefully structure their classloader
> hierarchies and, require clear separation of classes (responsibilities).

Ages ago I prototyped separating container from task classloader. If even the 
"privlidged" tasks talk to the container via interfaces it is only necessary 
to have these interfaces in common classloader and all is right as rain (and 
the task can not get access to real objects either).

> I'm not sure why Peter believes we won't need <taskdef> at top level
> anymore.

well why would we ?

> With regard to undefined properties causing a failure, rather than
> becoming the value ${ljljlkj}, I agree with this. I don't think it was
> ever agreed, and in fact, IIRC JDD was against it. 

dead against it IIRC ;)

> We have agreed to unify the namespace of properties and other "types"
> but not necessarily the contructs used to declare those elements.

right.

> Finally, a note on tone :-). If we can't conduct an even-tempered
> discussion without much of the undertone, then Ant2 is probably doomed
> for the dustbin.

you know my thoughts on this. Discussion means nothing - regardless of the 
tone.

-- 
Cheers,

Pete

-----------------------------------------------------
First, we shape our tools, thereafter, they shape us.
-----------------------------------------------------

Mime
View raw message