ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jose Alberto Fernandez" <>
Subject Re: [Ant2] Tasks as siblings of <target>
Date Tue, 06 Nov 2001 03:25:32 GMT
From: "Peter Donald" <>

> On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 03:13, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
> > From: "Peter Donald" <>
> >
> > I do not know what you mean?
> > Has <antcall> being -1 as user pattern?
> <antcall/> as a lightweight method call has been.

Have you take a look at ANT's build.xml file later? It uses <antcall/>
in several places, why are this uses acceptable if you claim such use
has been rejected? 
Maybe they are not considered "lightweight", but how do you plan to
distinguish between "lightweight" and "not lighweight" usages?

> > Otherwise, I do not see how a "use case" can be use to veto some particular
> > implementation approach.
> easily. See java wrt to pointers.
Please elaborate.

> > The funny thing is that we have a "compiled" version of the project model,
> > the Project object, but this object is not reusable since we pollute it
> > with execution state as we go thru it. I hope we can change that in ANT2.
> Most of the proposals separated the model from the runtime state.

Notice that state also includes the value of properties. so if I have:

    <property name="a" value="1" />
    <property name="b" value="${a}2" />

I would like to reuse the model in for example a call like:

    <antcall ....>
        <param name="a" value="3" />

Of course the question here is how close can the model and runtime representation
be, and still maintain the ability to process this kind of thing efficiently. Today,
the model (Project) and the runtime state are so close (almost the same) that
cannot do any reuse. The other extreme would be to use JDOM/DOM as the
model (memory equivalent to XML File) and process from there. Is there a more
efficient intermediate state?


Jose Alberto

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

View raw message