ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: IntrospectionHelper request
Date Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:52:15 GMT
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Erik Hatcher <>

> From: "Stefan Bodewig" <>
>> > No point in asking for other committers feedback,
>> Why not?
> Well, I guess I did....  :))

The whole discussion had reached such a late point when I came back
from my Xmas vacation that it was more than a little difficult to
follow or even throw in my opinion (and don't ask about the general
lust 8-).

> I prefer the interface method and Ant should be defining the
> interfaces that vendors adhere to

I don't have a problem with them, but the FSF may have, that's all.

> I think we should be making life easier for task writers rather than
> tougher.

There is a certain balance to keep though.  "Keep the core simple and
push complexity into the tasks" has been heard a lot around here and I
still follow it.

We could as well provide an implementation for

>>   <usercondition classname="...">
>>     <classpath ... />
>>     <param name="..." value="..." />
>>   </usercondition>

as a utility class, something like

PluggableComponent {

    void setClassname(String name);
    void addParam(Param p);
    Path createClasspath();

    Object getElement();

and anybody who wants pluggable elements would have to support a
nested element of that type - the whole find that class and configure
it logic could be hidden there.

This would make the live easier for task writers without making any
changes to the container.


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

View raw message