ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org>
Subject Re: IntrospectionHelper request
Date Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:52:15 GMT
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Erik Hatcher <jakarta-ant@ehatchersolutions.com>
wrote:

> From: "Stefan Bodewig" <bodewig@apache.org>
>> > 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.

Stefan

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message