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 13:20:16 GMT
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 23:42, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Peter Donald <> wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 21:40, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> >> 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.
> My point was that we sometimes rename tasks because the first name
> that came to our mind sucked for some reason.  Nothing will stop *me*
> from picking bad names for tasks that need to be changed by others in
> Ant2 ;-)

Right - but I still dont see what this has to do with a postfix notation ;)

> >> 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.
> Why?  I didn't say don't write or use utility classes, just that you
> shouldn't put them in the taskdefs package.

Many of the little helper/utility classes are specific to one task. Ie How 
many tasks use DocletInfo or XSLTParam. The more complex the task the more 
likely it is to have custom bits that are specific to that one task. I don't 
think it is a wise move to separate these little bits into different packages.



"It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we 
cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our 
responsibilities." -Josiah Stamp 

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

View raw message