ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject Re: Task postfix?
Date Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:27:18 GMT
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 21:40, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Peter Donald <> wrote:
> > I vaguely recall someone advocating that we post fix all our tasks
> > with "Task" (was that you Erik?).
> Why?

Well the main reason I know of is to distinguish easily between tasks and 
non-task objects ;) In ant1.x the non-task objects are only adaptors and 
helpers for main task object. In Ant2 there will be a far broader range of 
types; mappers, conditions, tasks, and so forth

Besides it is the pattern most tasks written outside ant follow ;)

> used to implement <execon> (something you could guess
> by then) and we later renamed that task as <apply> - so people have to
> look up which class implements <apply>, they cannot guess it.
> Using above rule, the class would have been ExecOnTask - how would
> that improve the situation?  Same for that would
> be CallTargetTask, not AntCallTask ;-)

Not really talking about existing Ant1.x where the names are already set in 
stone. Talking more in context of new tasks to ant1.x and ant2.

> Maybe it would be better to not place any classes into the taskdefs
> package that are not implementations of tasks but utility classes?

Thats another possibility. However that implies we have to use inner tasks a 
lot more. Doing so raises the complexity of the code and makes it harder for 
new developers to quickly become accustomed to the code. This is no

> > any objections or not?
> Other than "I don't like it"?  No.




 The fact that nobody understands you doesn't 
 mean you're an artist.

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

View raw message